@freeestenergie
Your first post and you choose only me, it makes me think you are a moletrap member just posting here out of malice?
@Qwert,
That was a very interesting pdf.
Clearly however we crossed posts and I guess it is obvious that quenco is not like that.
@Freeestenergie,
Apologies to you for falsely accusing you.
I really will not discuss anything in enough detail here to satisfy your curiosity, but let me meet you mid way and say that if you use the classical Quantum Tunneling equations you will see that as the thickness of a barrier (insulator) decreases the electron tunneling probability increases "exponentially".
Folks, I will not respond to anymore questions here, if you have some specific query that you want answered you can post it on my contact page and I will respond if I can, but probably not until after 11 June.
Thanks
Hello Mr.Philip Hardcastle,
it is diad tech or it is not ?
Something like this:
Dr. Alvin Marks
Ordered dipolar light electric power converter
EP0176781
production price estimation 1984 : go to [0013]
Lumeloid,Lepcon,Quensor , nice inventions,I agree.
Sincerely
CdL
Hi Everyone,
As a strategy to get the Worlds attention, and therefore to accelerate the development of quenco for power applications that can impact CO2 emissions, I have decided to produce a few 3.7V Phone batteries that never needs to be recharged and to courier them to Nokia, Blackberry or Apple + ? ?.
The quenco phone battery would be intentionally limited to output a maximum of 5W so as not to cause too much thermal stress or hand chilling.
I appreciate any views as to which phones most need an eternal battery (the ones with the biggest power consumption I guess).
I will still make the hearing aid batteries as the first retail quenco product sold from my website.
Thanks
@Stefan, the quencos being made for hearing aids are just 1mm x 1mm x 50um thick, so they look like a bit of glitter.
Phil
Yes I am fully aware of powerchips and have in fact had a few conversations and emails with them.
Quenco is completely different from the cool chip.
Hi All,
I have stripped down the website and will not be promoting quenco until I have all the proof.
Quenco is the real thing but there is only so much I can say without proof before people will start accusing me of a scam.
The only proof needed to start this revolution is the handout of a dozen 1mm x 1mm chips.
If the admin / owner of this site (Harti I assume) wishes to contact me I will arrange to send a free quenco chip to you.
Thanks for now
You cannot decide who get's rich and who stay's poor.
It is in the decision making of the people themselves.
Your plan will fail.
Yes, that's right.
The solution is teach the people to think. That is the real goal of this plan, the soul of this energy device.
To but in... imo the biggest advantage of quenco over say the coming LENR/cold fusion wave or other promising emerging tech is:
simplicity, size (huge power density apparently) and cost (you can apperently print them out like stamps) these factors allow quenco to pretty much saturate the world with them from cell phones to personal planes. The thing is so small that a "grid" or "central source" of energy would be obsolete even if the central was in your own basement. Every device would have one built in the potential is limitless.
The only proof needed to start this revolution is the handout of a dozen 1mm x 1mm chips.
If the admin / owner of this site (Harti I assume) wishes to contact me I will arrange to send a free quenco chip to you.
Thanks for now
Maybe this guy should apply for the Overunity Prize?
@Broli. Not sur I understood you last post. Are you saying that applying for the prize would not be to his advantage, or that you have doubts about this technology?
That is fine by me, I need to protect the rights of many with a patent, that is my view, it may be that I do not understand how to use open source and protect IP against the greed of large corporations, but for now having a PCT patent seems the best blanket safe position to take.
Hello
Very interesting thing, such a quentron power foil. I would be very happy if this foil does what is promised.
The coke can ventilator calculation:
Massflow [kg/s] 60CFM = 1.36 m3/min Density 1.2 kg/m3 --> 0.0272 kg/s
Specific Heat [J/kg K] 1000 J/kg K
Delta Temp [K] From 15°C down to 5°C --> 10 K
Power Qp [W] = Massflow [kg/s] x Specific Heat [J/kg K] x Delta Temp [K] = 272 W
That is a very high electical power output. Obviously much more than the power input of a ventilator. As well a nice air condition in summertime.
If I could use this foil, I will be happy to donate the inventor. I wish you all the best.
Best regards, cubalibre
Philip says he is a Yorkshire man. But i get the impression that he is currently working and living in Australia. I have no idea of the situation there. However I can guarantee that here in the UK, or in the USA, anyone applying for a patent for this device would face two problems immediately. First they would be warned never to write of it, or speak of it, or have anything to do with it ever again.
Secondly, the technology would be seized for National Security. That means it would be reserved for the military, MI5 , FBI, CIA, and so on. The first of many applications would be UAVs , or unmanned aircraft that would stay aloft indefinitely, and probe any country by using stealth technology. Any Patent Examiner who failed to initiate this process, would be guilty of failing in his Patriotic Duty, by throwing away the chance to give his country this advantage. And this is just one application that is painfully obvious to the layman. I have no doubt that the devious minds of the Powers That Be will find at least 100 ways to use this to take away peoples freedom, and preserve the Status Quo.
A sad comment on humanity, but I challenge anyone to fault my logic.
@TinselKoala. The situation is not clear here . Firstly, I do not of course, want to see Quentron disappear. My understanding is that the technology has not yet been patented, nor has a patent been applied for . I may be wrong.So applying for a patent would thrust this into big brothers face, and would in my opinion, forcibly draw the attention of the wrong people.
@Philip. It is probably simplistic to assume that Governments have the peoples interests at heart. Governments have the Governments interest at heart. Not the same thing.
ADDED LATER.I have found that the situation regarding USA patents has much improved since 2003. Just what the situation is in other countries, I do not know. So what I am basically saying is that I wish you every success, but at all times watch your back and look before you leap.
Goat,
I think you are looking to deeply at this, if you just disconnect the wires to the heater then the hot side stops getting hotter and the cold side stops getting colder. But yes you could feed some of one side back into the other just to keep it within the desired range I suppose.
The new refrigerator / hot water heater unit!
Hi lumen;
With all due respect, how am I "looking to deeply at this"?
Up to this point this thread has been trying to look at the possibilities of augmenting power by different methods but the basic problem seems to be the heat and cold side of the module. If what I proposed would solve the problem then what's wrong with that solution?
Maybe I missed something in your post as a counter argument, if so, please explain it, I'm sometimes dumb at getting the point of someone's point in a post, so if I missed it please forgive me and carry on :)
P.S.: "The new refrigerator / hot water heater unit!" That part I agree with :)
Regards,
Paul
We are still a few weeks away from showing the public proof that Quenco is as claimed
The production delays are minor but are out of my control
So I will not make the mistake of announcing a new launch date yet
Paul,
There is no "but the basic problem seems to be the heat and cold side of the module".
The module converts heat directly to energy. So you need to apply heat to both sides
of the module. The limiting factor is how much and how fast you can provide heat to the module.
GL.
I don't get it, now the website doesn't show anything.
If this thing does anything close to what he is talking about there are so many companies that would be fighting over the rights to this thing.
Would have loved to get my hands on one just to see how efficient it is.
The only proof that counts is either an openly sold product or a quenco in the hands of a totally independent tester(s). I am not going to go down the road of doing what you ask.
I can tell from your choice of words that you are merely being provocative, I suspect the fact that your first post is to me that you are just another of the moles from the mindless moletrap.
What you are trying to say, is that if I do not post a video here when you ask me to, then I am a scam.
If I have read you wrong then I apologize, but if you are genuine you would respect my rights to do it my way, your way (if I chose to do it) would get me absolutely nowhere, it would attract people who would accuse me of smoke and mirrors.
So I continue without wasting my time, and the time of others, to get it done in the lab and then out to the testers, if that leads people to call me a liar or a scammer, then that is their choice.
...
If people want me to give updates here, I will, but if people are going to be rude and cast aspersions, I will not.
Hollander, Does it not seem foolish to come on here saying your are new and yet in the same post to say it seems so simple?
While videos have become a popular way for backyard experimenters to show how they built something or to simply show they actually did build something it is a great way to open up hundreds of pages of debate and questions on how you faked a video if you are claiming overunity or some new power source. But for a known physicist it would be an exercise if frustration and a waste of time.
The site was finally getting some good updates and progressing rapidly. Now CLOSED!Yes that is disconcerting and while I know he is busy I am very concerned. Did anyone have his email (I forget if it was posted in this thread but I'll check in a minute) or a way to contact him? His site is far from being expired as it's paid through April 2013. Unfortunately he has domain privacy set up so no easy way to contact him from domain name info.
What does that even mean? I could see under construction or moving or anything other than CLOSED.
Closed seems so final, I hope everything is ok.
Hello Elisha,Hello Lanca, a QUENCO kit is better without all the power combustion engine and related accesories, like fan, radiator, air compressor, alternator, battery, fuel tank, etc. a hybrid will have a lot of maintenance and many more points of failure. What do you think about a mild hybrid? :)
the cities authorities -globally- want to establish zero emission zones.
This means that the "mild hybrid kit" has a priority,
the total car traffic electrification is something for the future =more exspensive !
The costs for Hybrid kits with conventional parts (battery/eMotor et cet.) are actually 1000-1500 Euros,probably a quenco-system could be cheaper =faster R.O.I. ,normally -30% fuel savings and zero greenhouse gases emission in town !
Curlitron: Philip's experiment from 2009: http://www.overunity.com/8306/curlitron/#.UBzkR6N0iko (http://www.overunity.com/8306/curlitron/#.UBzkR6N0iko)
Updated information in quentron.com.
Philip is making great information available in the site, also have graphics to show the way of quenco works.
The price of 0,10 A$ per mm2 is very chip, because a 5kiloWatts 1cm2 Quenco at 110 V. will be like 100 layers, in royalty is 10 A$, but the street price will be like 1.000 A$, i live in a poor country but at this price this is a bargain.
Please every one, Be Ready to spread this information all over the Internet, we are blessed to be first, Let's take this good news to everybody, everybody will dance to the music of Quenco! 8) .
Hi Qwert, took a look myself the experiment proposal written by Paul Lawrence, and I think the curlitron effect can be enhanced with a very long and slim copper heatink, given a current and a voltage measurement across the heatsink (head and tail).
Therefore, I think, the thinner and the longer the nanometer heatsink, the better the effect will manifest. That is probably the reason why Hardcastle wanted the cooper to be vapor deposited by vaccum over a subtrate by a third party, because it can be made into some nanometers thick, and over a roll of plastic membrane. You just apply electrical current over the both ends of this long sheet of metalized copper coated plastic, and the ambient heat will do the rest, producing copious amount of electricity.
We can invite Paul Lawrence to this thread to corroborate the idea, whether it is logical.
aaron5120
... ...
Qwert:
I believe Philip has many years into the development of the QUENCO device and it's likely that he has experimented with many or all of the methods indicated on his web page, but the QUENCO chip is unique in it's operation. To state doubt at this time is somewhat foolish with only a few weeks to the public launch.
After reading some new statistics just this week I think our weather is clearly getting hotter on a global scale and I believe Quenco can have a very positive effect in bringing things back to balance if it is able to be implemented on a large scale. Whether by millions of small units or hundreds of thousands of large units or both it may truly be a life saver for this planet. Best of luck in the launch!
A Quenco system would not produce any carbon byproducts. It would produce cold cell phones though.
A Quenco system would not produce any carbon byproducts. It would produce cold cell phones though.
From what I understand Quencu produces electricity out of thermal energy. That same electricity when flowing as a current through a resistance produces thermal energy. So a closed system with Quenco inside never loses its thermal energy but still can do useful work. Thus trying to cool the environment won't work, as whatever you are using the electricity for, its resistance will heat it back up. I'm btw not a proponent of man made climate change but that's beside the point.
Not really, perhaps in the region of where the thin film was installed. But if the main heat sources like the cpu, gpu, antenna, lcd... where to be covered with Quenco the phone should, from what I get, remain at the current temperature of the environment as the thin film is absorbing all the radiated heat of these IC's and conductors and giving it back as electricity. Since the heat of these components is used to power them a true closed loop system arises. And this would apply to everything. For instance a conductor covered with Quenco would become a "pseudo" superconductor. Since you are absorbing all the heat and putting it back into the system as electric energy everything remains at the temperature of the environment you are in and be, theoretically, lossless.
This is a feedback cycle.I got pretty hot about the quentron - but I think that the awareness of entrophy is essential for building such stuff.
With one real limit: entrophy recitating "Since you are absorbing all the heat and putting it back into the system ....."
all the heat=all the motion =
to zero point Kelvin :
and the zero point ict-coordinate geral
ic~t specific,dynamics
cognitive: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichtkegel (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichtkegel)
first samples today. Would love to be in Australia right now to help with things.Yeah really - me too. Can you elaborate on what you heard about first samples being available?
;D
So, taking under consideration @e2matrix' revelations, the best solution to avoid popular concerns is to publicize this kind of invention simultaneously with the patent application.
But before that is achieved first we have to learn to distinguish psycopath and get rid of them so no psycopath lives forever.
What should have been the first big thing is permanent life extension, so everyone could live as long as they wanted and at the peak of life or about 26 years old.
I will come to this thread a year from now.
Those that are following quenco can rest assured that there is no conspiracy or problems, please just allow me to take heed of advice that the proper thing to protect the rights of many is to ensure that intellectual property I hold is transformed into an airtight Patent so that it cannot be usurped by the big corporations.
Though hope springs eternal, I won't be holding my breath either, as I've already seen a number of Phil's promises go, er, "unfulPhilled".
BTW, I created this spoof of the Quenco drawing for the moletrap forum. Some of you here may enjoy it as well:
http://i49.tinypic.com/dadlu.jpg (http://i49.tinypic.com/dadlu.jpg)
Well this is fast becoming a get rich quick exercise, licenses have just gone up 10 fold@
High Power Quenco Licences[/color][/font]
Limited to 100 licences[/color][/font]
Unlimited production[/color][/font]
Upfront fee of A$10,000,000[/color][/font]
Annual Licence renewal fee of A$10,000,000[/color][/font]
Royalty of $1/mm2 of Quenco produced [/color][/font]
Restricted to the production of Quenco exceeding 1kW per cm2[/color][/font]
Minimum production of 10,000,000,000 mm2 of Quenco p.a[/color][/font]
Low Power Quenco Licence[/color][/font]
Unlimited licences[/color][/font]
Unlimited production[/color][/font]
Upfront fee of A$1,000,000[/color][/font]
Annual renewal fee of A$1,000,000[/color][/font]
Royalty of $1/mm2 of Quenco produced[/color][/font]
Restricted to the production of Quenco of less than 1kW per cm2[/color][/font]
Well this is fast becoming a get rich quick exercise, licenses have just gone up 10 fold@
Official Launch 29th October 2012
Palo Alto, California
(limited seating by invitation only)
Patents & scientific papers will be published here immediately following the launch.
We will have a USA representative as of November 2012, postal and phone contact details will be posted here.
I was not going to do any more posting here, and given some of the comments starting to come in that probably is a good idea, however I will defend what I am doing briefly.
Tesla motors? Cars that use wheels in the new Quenco Jetson age.
Why drive when you could fly. :)
Tesla motors? Cars that use wheels in the new Quenco Jetson age.
Why drive when you could fly. :)
Elisha,
how do you calculate 10X less costs when the first market price of the quenco device will be near 500US$/KW ?
Sincerely
CdL
@Hollander, I do not mind a challenge to anything I say but you need to crawl back under the rock you just came out of.
The person that said almost 100 years ago that the thermionic current at the surface of a room temperature metal is 1 million amperes was never accused of misplacing a negative sign to an exponent. If you want to know that famous scientists name go and educate yourself.
For those that want solid science to back up the numbers Google Esaki diodes and you will see entries like this
"Esaki diode characteristics with maximum reverse current of 1750 kA/cm2 at 0.50 V"
Note the article states 1750kA/cm2, that is 1.75 million amperes per cm2.
The Esaki diode is a quenco without the mesh.
I will not respond to any other post from this Hollander jerk, he is here just to be nasty.
@MileHigh
Yes, we allready discuss the problem of get heat to quenco, but dont worry, there is a lot of heat in the air for keep a big truck at 120 km/h.
"Go back to college and educate yourself. "
troll
1a. Noun
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.
You insult your skeptic laden brethren hollander, have you no shame, what would your wife and children think of this. Schaam jezelf jongen!
Dear all,
I am usually a polite person and I have only expressed my honest criticism on some well known facts (on which, by the way, I have a very long professional experience). What do you think about Hardcastle reply?
"Hollander, I do not mind a challenge to anything I say but you need to crawl back under the rock you just came out of.
... If you want to know that famous scientists name go and educate yourself.
...
I will not respond to any other post from this Hollander jerk, he is here just to be nasty."
Do you think this is a polite reply? My post was a technical one. His post has been an humoral and unfriendly one.
Issue closed.
Dear all,
hollander, what is a "high sensibility ammeter" ? Can we assume you meant high sensitivity ammeter?
I also do not understand your question about doing a test without a 'thermionic layer'. I don't see any reference on that page to a thermionic layer in that test with the pentode. Are you saying to do the test without any heat? If so don't you think that his reason for adding the capacitor was to establish a base line by keeping out stray emf?
One other question for you. You seem intent on believing he has nothing of interest here. Ask your self this. Would a physicist move half way around the world to meet with other scientists at Stanford and high tech companies to start production on this if he had nothing real? And doing all that without asking anyone for money? Yes he will be selling licensing for this but who is going to put up a Million dollars or more without knowing for certain it is a viable device? My 'High Sensibility meter' says NO, no one would do that unless it is a viable device.
We have only to wait less than one month. And then we will see.
In classical thermodynamics, the laws of thermodynamics are basic postulates applicable to any
system involving measurable heat transfer. In statistical thermodynamics, the second law is a
consequence of unitarity in quantum theory[citation needed]. In classical thermodynamics, however,
the second law defines the concept of thermodynamic entropy, while in statistical mechanics entropy
is defined from information theory, known as the Shannon entropy. In such instances, the second law
of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature,
pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system so as to result in the
natural entropic dissolution of the system itself. From the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, the
law deduced the principle of the increase of entropy and explains the phenomenon of irreversibility
in nature. The second law declares that perpetual motion machines are impossible.
.
.
.
Kelvin statement
Lord Kelvin expressed the second law as "It is impossible, by means of inanimate material agency, to
derive mechanical effect from any portion of matter by cooling it below the temperature of the
coldest of the surrounding objects.[7] This may be restated as[4]
“ No process is possible in which the sole result is the absorption of heat from a reservoir
and its complete conversion into work. â€
This means it is impossible to extract energy by heat from a high-temperature energy source and then
convert all of the energy into work. At least some of the energy must be passed on to heat a low-
temperature energy sink. Thus, a heat engine exhibiting 100% efficiency is thermodynamically
impossible. This also means that it is impossible to build solar panels that generate electricity
solely from the infrared band of the electromagnetic spectrum without consideration of the
temperature on the other side of the panel (as is the case with conventional solar panels that
operate in the visible spectrum).
Note that it is possible to convert heat completely into work, such as the isothermal expansion of
ideal gas. However, such a process has an additional result. In the case of the isothermal
expansion, the volume of the gas increases and never goes back without outside interference.
Would a physicist move half way around the world to meet with other scientists at Stanford and high tech companies to start production on this if he had nothing real? And doing all that without asking anyone for money? Yes he will be selling licensing for this but who is going to put up a Million dollars or more without knowing for certain it is a viable device? My 'High Sensibility meter' says NO, no one would do that unless it is a viable device.
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 (http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3125)
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.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.
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.
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.
Finally, no takers to explain why the $10 TV tube experiment overturns the 2nd LoT? I personally don't see that happening at all.
SUCCESSFULL REPLICATION of Philip Hardcastle Pentode test.
Confirmed VIOLATION OF THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. Yes we can, extract work from a heat reservoir, with no temperature difference.
The second law of thermodynamics express "This means it is impossible to extract energy by heat from a high-temperature energy source and then convert all of the energy into work. At least some of the energy must be passed on to heat a low-temperature energy sink"
We use a pentode, model EL34, grid G3 (Pin 1) connected to the anode (Pin 3) and measuring the current to the cathode (Pin 8 )
We used a home electric oven and electric grill resistor further inside, the tube was placed inside a glass dome with the resistance burner to reach a higher temperature than the oven.
We get currents up to 0,3 micro ampere, when I get to a temperature of about 350°C, but could not raise the temperature as the control card of the oven was damaged by the temperature.
The current was up from the 0,0 micro amps at room temperature to 0,3 micro ampere, the positive lead of the tester was connected to the anode and grid, the tester negative lead was connected to the cathode. By exchanging the polarity of the tips in the current tester polarity change by the same amount in the display of the tester.
We hope to put a video tomorrow better done and reaching higher temperatures and thus higher currents.
The test was conducted by myself plus two friends as witnesses, Smith Rivero and Yeruel Bustamante.
One more question: Do you already have a Quenco working prototype? If not, how can one say that it is a "million times more powerful" than the pentode experiment?
I could get access to the time/equipment at a Russell Group university lab via a research scientist friend. I have no doubt that the experiment would be replicated. From there though, would the university be willing to endorse it?
Now if there was a challenge to replicate something using various pure metal foils (for example) producing useable power with multiple layers in an oven for example with a prize for first/best validation then I am sure there would be uptake.
Note: Again we do the pentode experiment, and this reached a maximum of 3.9 micro ampere, just before melting. (Much more, than 0.3 micro ampere in previous test).
Anyone that thinks a toaster oven is not sufficient for this test is severely limited in problem solving.
1: Heat the tube and record the current and polarity. Let the oven cool down and rotate the tube 180 degrees. Reheat and record the current and polarity. Is it the same polarity? If yes then it works.
2: Place the tube on a rotating shaft and slowly rotate while heating. Does it produce an alternating current? If no, then it works.
Wow, tested in a toaster oven without expensive isothermal oven.
If yes, then it works? If no, then it works?
Really? So your tests in the toaster oven are ruling out ANY OTHER POSSIBLE explanation for seeing a current indicated on the instrumentation?
Wow, your toaster oven must be really something. Do you put the meter in there too, so it's not acting as a cold sink for some thermoelectric effect?
Lumen:
Your comments are nonsensical. You are implicitly conceding that the toaster oven is not an isothermal environment but you have a Lumen-inspired "work around" for the problem. Just rotate the tubes like barbecue chicken and if they produce current in a variable-temperature environment then all must be fine.
Your "problem solving" is severely limited.
MileHigh
Lumen:
Your comments are nonsensical. You are implicitly conceding that the toaster oven is not an isothermal environment but you have a Lumen-inspired "work around" for the problem. Just rotate the tubes like barbecue chicken and if they produce current in a variable-temperature environment then all must be fine.
Your "problem solving" is severely limited.
MileHigh
Thalidomide, launched by Grünenthal on 1 October 1957,[10] was found to act as an effective tranquilizer and painkiller, and was proclaimed a "wonder drug" for insomnia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insomnia), coughs, colds, and headaches.
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, more than 10,000 children in 46 countries were born with deformities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformities), such as phocomelia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phocomelia), as a consequence of thalidomide use.[11] It is not known exactly how many worldwide victims of the drug there have been, although estimates range from 10,000 to 20,000.
The US has said they will be the worlds largest oil producer by 2020. They plan to do this through fracking and horizontal drilling, both are heavy polluters to water ways and underground streams.Yes I saw that article also about the US becoming the largest oil producer. I agree it's a big concern. We need to do all we can to help Quenco become a mainstream energy source. I want to believe Phil has a handle on all this but until I see it readily available I will not rest easy.
I now have some huge fears that quenco will just be snuffed out like some dust mite in the midst of this.
:o
Some more info from http://www.sciencenewsline.com/ (http://www.sciencenewsline.com/) about using heat to power lasers via quantum tunneling.
In their work, recently published in Physical Review Letters, the two physicists propose the theory that the heating effect in quantum cascade lasers could not only be avoided but, in fact, reversed through a cleverly-devised modification of the thickness of the semiconductor layers. "A crucial part is to spatially separate the cold and warm areas in the laser," explains Kathrin Sandner. "In such a temperature gradient driven laser, electrons are thermally excited in the warm area and then tunnel into the cooler area where photons are emitted." This produces a circuit where light particles are emitted and heat is absorbed from the system simultaneously. "Between the consecutive emissions of light particles a phonon is absorbed and the laser is cooled. When we develop this idea further, we see that the presence of phonons may be sufficient to provide the energy for laser amplification," says Kathrin Sandner. Such a laser could be powered without using electric current.
So my take on this is that by emitting photons the cool side remains cool and if the laser/maser energy could efficiently be converted into electricity then maybe a heat pump with a COP of at least three could heat a device enough to make more electricity than the heat pump requires just by cooling what ever.
I don't think even a fully developed Quenco will be a 100% efficient, there always going to be some small loses. Asymmetry is the key to Quenco causing a very large inbalance of tunneling electrons between the emitter and receiver.
C.O.P.: 7x !
::) http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=6&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19931012&CC=US&NR=5252176A&KC=A 8)
Sincerely
CdL
...
However science is science and I see no harm in a university doing an independent experiment when the components are so cheap, in fact it was the issue I had with the raving skeptics and like, that they are so quick to put everything down and totally incapable of doing a $10 experiment at any level of sophistication. The offer by Steven was noted to be late in all this but nonetheless I am not going to act to stifle any experimentation.
...
an electric wave of a total maximum activity of ten million horse power will be possible with a plant of but 100 horse power, by the use of a magnifying transmitter .
"When the great truth, accidentally revealed and experimentally confirmed, is fully recognized, that this planet, with all its appalling immensity, is to electric currents virtually no more than a small metal ball and that by virtue of this fact many possibilities, each baffling imagination and of incalculable consequence, are rendered absolutely sure of accomplishment; when the first plant is inaugurated and it is shown that a telegraphic message, almost as secret and non-interferable as a thought, can be transmitted to any terrestrial distance, the sound of the human voice, with all its intonations and inflections faithfully and instantly reproduced at any other point of the globe, the energy of a waterfall made available for supplying light, heat or motive power, anywhere...on sea, or land, or high in the air...humanity will be like an ant heap stirred up with a stick. See the excitement coming!"
Yeah, Phil ... and you are wrong. I'd much rather be me, than you.From an impartial perspective, the answers to your "questions" had been addressed previously and therefore the loaded, rhetorical nature of them do, in fact, make them little more than ill-thought-out, "snide" comments. Including the "questions" in this quoted post.
You can pick up posts in another forum and post them here, but you cannot refute any of my points. The best you can do is to insult me, as you have done here.
Shouldn't you be working? Tick tock, tick tock. What will you say to me when November 30 comes and you cannot demonstrate a cellphone that operates from a Quenco... or even a single LED operating from a Quenco? Will you apologise to me? Of course you won't.
But if you DO produce what you claim, I'll say "I'm sorry Phil, please forgive me" and I'll be genuinely sorry too, because it will be TEOTWAWKI for sure.
Yeah, Phil ... and you are wrong. I'd much rather be me, than you.
You can pick up posts in another forum and post them here, but you cannot refute any of my points. The best you can do is to insult me, as you have done here.
Shouldn't you be working? Tick tock, tick tock. What will you say to me when November 30 comes and you cannot demonstrate a cellphone that operates from a Quenco... or even a single LED operating from a Quenco? Will you apologise to me? Of course you won't.
But if you DO produce what you claim, I'll say "I'm sorry Phil, please forgive me" and I'll be genuinely sorry too, because it will be TEOTWAWKI for sure.
Here are some more rhetorical questions for you.LOL - not just one Red Herring but a whole handful. And you were the one telling me not to pull the MIB card...
Has PJH ever missed a self-imposed deadline or other projected date?
Have any free energy inventors who succeeded, ever been suppressed by Big Oil, the Banksters, the Military, the Official Secrets Act?
Would the Quenco have any military applications at all? How much does a gallon of jet fuel, delivered to a forward-deployed Apache gunship, cost?
Would a nation that possessed the secret of Quencos have a military or geopolitical advantage at all?
Would there be any motivation for such a nation to maintain their monopoly on Quencos? Would they be motivated to exert export controls, like they do on highspeed cameras, certain computer gear, trigatrons, etc? Secretize the patent(s)? Expropriate everything to do with the product and ship it off to someplace like Area 51?
Does China have advanced chip fabrication facilities, skilled workers, rare-earth mines? How about Israel, or North Korea?
OK, go ahead and continue the insults. (Maybe you could show me just where "I started it". )
But perhaps one or two of you might think about the answers to some of these questions...
@tk
With the exception of the 1st question, none of your questions really have any bearing on the likelihood or not of PJH having anything interesting on his hands if the material is fabricated to his specification.
A list of downsides doesn't decrease the likelihood any more than a list of optimistic statements increases it.
As to the 1st question, everyone knows the answer to that is yes, but where does that get you and what point are you making by asking it?
What Id find more interesting personally is how you'd improve upon the test that PJH claims as strong evidence for his theory?
As I understand it, he predicted that there'd be a specific increase of a specific magnitude at a specific temperature, rather than randomly fannying around with things until he found a result he liked, like some madwomen and acolytes of mutual acquaintance.
If that's true (and maybe PJH could assert how close the behaviour was to any prediction) doesn't that warrant a bit more latitude?
...
But if you DO produce what you claim, I'll say "I'm sorry Phil, please forgive me" and I'll be genuinely sorry too, because it will be TEOTWAWKI for sure.
@mrsean2k:I could punch a lot of holes in your assumptions and conclusions but I don't want to take the time to do all that. You are a smart enough person to figure some of them out but I believe you are blinded by a prejudice against Phil or maybe it's just against anyone making claims in certain situations. Have you never built any big projects? I've designed and built some very large projects and I assumed I could finish within a certain time frame. These were projects that took over a year to complete and while most people were surprised I was able to finish in the time I did I was repeatedly disappointed that I was taking longer than expected. It's difficult to see every detail of a big project and all the little snags that can happen. It is actually rare that I've built anything or repaired anything that didn't take longer than I expected with the exception of a couple fields where I seem to be exceptionally gifted. I'm certainly not alone in that as I see people and projects missing deadlines all the time. It's a big project Phil has and one he's been at for 14 years IIRC. So I find no surprise at all that some expected deadlines aren't met.
The first rhetorical question was to remind people that PHJ has made extravagant claims in the past, imposed deadlines and schedules that he has failed to meet. The intention was to try to dampen the unbridled enthusiasm and to predict... yes, predict... that he will once again not be able to meet his projected date. If I am wrong about this, we will know shortly, in good time to head for the hills, I hope.
A couple more of the questions address some of the usual suspects. If there ever has been any suppression of free energy inventors, AND IF Phil has even a remote chance of being right.... why isn't he being suppressed? Since he clearly isn't being suppressed, the point is that either he does not have what he claims and the Powers of Suppression know it.... or he does have what he claims and there is no conspiracy to suppress Free Energy inventors and probably never has been. Either conclusion is perfectly acceptable to me. Are there alternatives?
And the rest of the questions also set up a situation for contemplation. If, for example, Adam Trombley can have his liquid-metal contact system for homopolar generators sequestered by the Federal government because of national security reasons.... why should we expect the USA to act otherwise in the case of Quenco.... IF IT IS REAL? The immediate and necessary applications for Quenco are all military, and it doesn't really take much imagination to tell what they are. Probably five or ten pounds of the gear a modern soldier has hanging about himself consists of various batteries and power supplies for his advanced combat suite. Eliminate that load and replace it with grenades or ammo or more battlefield sensors.... His forward observation drones are limited in range and endurance because of their batteries. His radios and other telecoms, his computer... ditto. A gallon of jet fuel for a forward-deployed gunship might cost several hundred dollars or even more, to get to where it is needed, and every turbine genset between here and there is competing for and raising the price of that fuel.....
The country with an army that possesses Quenco will have a real military advantage... and will seek to keep that advantage out of the hands of its geopolitical foes.
Yet we are asked to believe that Quenco will be powering cellphones and hearing aids.... when in reality, if it works, it will be powering missiles, sensor suites, surveillance drones, autonomous surface robots and other scary things. Any military that got wind of such a system would be absolutely crazy to let it out of its hands and would be committing suicide if it let it fall into the hands of its enemies.
You cannot even legally export a highspeed video camera from the USA without a lot of paperwork. Special alloy aluminum tubes... .forget about it. Trigatrons.... nope. But Quencos..... sure.
So the net result of my rhetorical questions is hopefully to question the credibility of Quenco as it has been presented. I am perfectly happy to entertain reasons why such a device would NOT be of extreme interest to militaries, and would be a "force multiplier" in any military actions..... or why the USA, a paranoid government if there ever was one, would let such a device, or its inventor, begin selling it around the world, made in USA or contracted to big chipmakers in China. Do you not think, for example, that the Chinese would be extremely interested in such a device and would covet it strongly? Are the North Korean spies in Silicon Valley even now plotting to break into Phil's lab, steal his prototype and notes, and kidnap him for brainwashing?
Since they are not... perhaps they are not interested, and why would that be?
The test that is being discussed is, like I said, a little late, and could much more easily be done on the spot in Palo Alto, than in Utah or elsewhere. But it's moot, isn't it? Why even discuss such a test when the finished product, working to produce usable power from ambient temperature with no lower-temperature sink necessary..... is going to be available in ten or eleven days? Won't the functioning of those devices be proof enough? I don't think you could even set up and perform that test with the necessary rigor in ten days, even if you did work thru Thanksgiving. So why is the test even being proposed? Is it possible that Quenco will need some kind of experimental validation using a pentode and a hot oven, _after_ this first production run is completed and released? Why?
I wasn't going to participate in this thread any more until after Nov 30... but you asked... so I answered. Now let the insults begin.
I'm also fairly certain that if something this potentially big was seized it would have every available scientist in the world trying to duplicate it.Sort of like how they are trying to duplicate the atomic bomb, or Rossi's "Ecat"?
I'd like to know how you know that. You are telling me that suppression only happens after the fact of public knowledge, because we know only of suppressions that happened after the fact. If suppression were effective before the fact of publication .... you and I would not know of it at all. So we have no way of knowing how many free energy projects and inventors have been suppressed before they made their discoveries public.... do we? Unless that is, you are the one doing the suppression.
If you look at most past inventions that have come into the 'free energy zone' it was not until after they were being openly shown that suppression began taking place.
@TK: You are over/under thinking this. Phil has already published enough information to enable any organisation that does not have to abide by commercial rules to make/use it with a little trial and error (in terms of exact materials). Everyone with an interest in this subject has seen the various permutations of his website so it's too late for "suppression".Has anyone, anywhere, working in any laboratory for anybody, or even in his or her garage.... has anyone been able to replicate PJH's work and come to the same conclusions he has?
In defence of the "dark forces", they are just guys looking after their familes like we are and I think you are giving "them" less credit than "they" deserve by implying that the only tactic they ever had was "suppression". Maybe it was possible a couple of decades ago to delete a couple of people and that's it all done, but not now.The USA sequesters patents under National Security reasons every year, and the rate of them doing this varies from year to year but is never zero. Most of these inventions, I presume, have military applications, and I'll bet you my next paycheck that none of them are nearly as significant as Quenco. No new science, IOW, in these suppressed patents.
You seem to be sure that other forms of alternative energy have been "suppressed". If that were true, and considering that the "dark forces" are certainly (collectively (it's a group thing)) a lot more intelligent than you are, what would you (in a method acting attempt at being the combined minds of several CotC PhDs and their highly intelligent employers) think "their" plans would be - considering that "they" (according to you) already have all that "suppressed" information/technology - in the event that something valid and practically open-sourced that they could not "suppress" came to light?Do you think from my comments that I actually DO believe in the kinds of "suppression" that people _claim_ are keeping Free Energy inventions from freeing the world of the Tyranny of Big Oil? Is English your first language, or am I just not being clear? I think I said right out in plain words, that either PJH has what he claims and there is no suppression conspiracy, or he does not have what he claims.... in which case neither the US national security apparatus nor any other suppression agents will give a flying fish about it, whether or not a suppression conspiracy exists. Either way it's OK with me.
And before you embarrass yourself by answering I'll do you a favour.... that isn't a question, it's just a snidey comment.It's a very long snidey comment, TLDR. Just kidding. The best zingers are short and sweet.
....Quenco will be immediately used on all battlefields on this poor Earth as soon as it is available to the combatants, if they are using anything more sophisticated than machetes and burning-tire necklaces.
....
It looks like a fear of change is creeping in.Yawn. Wake me up when the future arrives.
Tk says he can adapt, but yet he is the first showing signs of "future shock".
Soon....soon.... where have I heard that before?
Relax TK, it will all be over soon.
I don't think the US will have much luck sequestering an international patent from Australia.
<snip<Just to clarify I learned well from Star Trek's Scotty too - never tell them how long it will really take or how much you can give -- always overstate how long or understate how much you can give. But these big projects were for myself.
@e2matrix: I have no problem with projects that take a long time for completion, longer than the participants anticipated or planned for. I have a problem with people who constantly miss deadlines and fail over and over to demonstrate what they claim. And I'm sure whoever contracted you for your project would have also felt the same way.
I learned a long time ago that the way to make customers happy is to promise them a _LATER_ completion date than you think you can manage. Then, when you finish in, say, two weeks, but you told them three, you call up and deliver one week ahead of schedule and everyone is happy, word gets around and you get more business. But if you promised one week, and you finish the same project in two weeks.... your customer will think you are late and unreliable, word gets around and you lose business. Yet you finished the same project in the same amount of time in each case.
Sort of like how they are trying to duplicate the atomic bomb, or Rossi's "Ecat"?
But I do agree with you: the seizure would give the Quenco so much "street cred" that it would push a lot of people over the edge and cause them to pay more attention. So the non-seizure is a clever use of reverse psychology by the Forces of Suppression to make sure nobody works on Quenco, by pretending it's insignificant. Right?
On the other hand, the nonseizure might indicate what I'm implying that it means: non-significance, non-importance to national security. And I believe that I've shown that a power source like Quenco claims to be... even "low power" enough to power a cellphone... will have truly great military significance, and that's not the only NS consequence or implication.I'd like to know how you know that. You are telling me that suppression only happens after the fact of public knowledge, because we know only of suppressions that happened after the fact. If suppression were effective before the fact of publication .... you and I would not know of it at all. So we have no way of knowing how many free energy projects and inventors have been suppressed before they made their discoveries public.... do we? Unless that is, you are the one doing the suppression.
Heh.... no, there are many kinds of free energy that won't be useful on the Battlefield Earth or be destabilising. Rossi's 1 MW Ecat, the ZED, any gravity wheel.... bring it on, I ain't worried, we are not going to see Ecat powered missiles or gravity-wheel main battle tanks.... A HoJoMo in every fighter jet, the Sword of God as the depot-level powerplant in the rear, Little Miss Mosfet heaters providing hot showers for the troops, Orbo-powered CD players and electric razors.
But something like Quenco.... gives one pause, for sure. Personally I'd like to see an upheaval in the status quo, until I remember what suffering it will cause. Then I think that maybe Quenco is the key to Pandora's Box (or jar). Open it, and you mightn't like everything that comes flying out, and for sure you won't be able to stuff it back inside.
I see a whole different reality. One where there are no more reasons for wars or greed. One in which governments become much less important.
Made By Magnetic Mary,
Why does he need to manage anyone's expectations? Why, given the history so far, aren't you just managing your own?
If anyone has high expectations, and then subsequently feel disadvantaged in some way that those expectations aren't met, it's their responsibility to revise their expectations.
Getting Things Done is difficult, punditry isn't.
@MBM,
I am OK with how the Quenco project is chugging along. If you have never had a schedule change on a project then you have not been aggressive enough with the scheduling.
Quenco will eventually rock the world. Right now your time and mine will be better spent figuring out methods to feed Quenco with high thermal energy from the ambient when it is ready.
@Madebymonkeys:
http://www.ipaustralia.com.au/applicant/hardcastle-philip-julian-mr/patents/
Sincerely
CdL
@Madebymonkeys:
http://www.ipaustralia.com.au/applicant/hardcastle-philip-julian-mr/patents/
Sincerely
CdL
He's an infrequent poster, but if you're constantly wanking, I suppose there's a decent chance you will be, statistically speaking.
I think it is strange that so little attention has been given to Quenco in comparison to the pseudo science of Steorn and such but in some ways it is good as it has allowed us to progress with little interference.
Anyway this is my last update before the launch.
Bye
Hi Phil,
you could at least post a few pictures of a test sample lighting up a few LEDs or so, so it will be more believable
and people will not think it is all only a fake...
Regards, Stefan.
Hi All,
Not sure that I appreciate the sort of snooping on my affairs re patents but let me simply say an international patent application was filed months ago citing the prior dates of 2 provisional applications.
There have been delays caused by many things, I am not going to parade them here but they have nothing to do with the Quenco itself, they were matters beyond my control of an administrative, clerical and contracts nature. We have but one hurdle to overcome and tomorrow I expect to be given the green light to conclude construction of the current Quenco device batch.
Those that think my estimates have been silly do not know the difficult road I have been on, the number of times people have broken their word or the immense technical challenges that only became apparent when we tried to do things at a scale of less than 3nm. I actually think we have done remarkably well to be now confident of getting to the end of this stage over the next week or so.
Those that want to snipe go ahead, I am not the slightest bit perturbed by such conduct, I after all have the advantage of knowing the facts, the skeptics merely want to posture and poke fun at people doing things they cannot.
I will not answer the barbs that pop up here, i will say thankd for the moral support from the kinder people here.
Quenco will change the World but I admit to being a bit ambitious to think I oculd do it all on my own, I now ahve the support of a number of experts from stanford and elsewhere, I now have support from many parts of the World, I now have quite a large team who are dedicated to making all this become a commercial reality as soon as humanly possible.
I admit to being too optimistic re delivery but if I had not set myself and others a goal we would find that the progress would have been slower, it is an obvious fact that this sort of work is impossilbe to accurately estimate for what seems simple has turned out to be a test at all levels. I feel though that when I read of other universities taking years to get to only half of what a quenco is then we have made incredible progress unfunded by fat government grants.
This really is cutting edge work to deliver a device in such an advanced form, just think of the amn years almost every device requires, we had just me then a few dedicated scientists out of Australia and not a few more at stanford and elsewhere, in total perhaps a few man years, in nano technology that is really very little time.
I think it is strange that so little attention has been given to Quenco in comparison to the pseudo science of Steorn and such but in some ways it is good as it has allowed us to progress with little interference.
Anyway this is my last update before the launch.
Bye
...
Quenco is 100% real proved physics, the implementation at the scale of 2nm is very hard to do, we are still working on it.
...
Hi All,Hi Phil,
Not sure that I appreciate the sort of snooping on my affairs re patents but let me simply say an international patent application was filed months ago citing the prior dates of 2 provisional applications.
There have been delays caused by many things, I am not going to parade them here but they have nothing to do with the Quenco itself, they were matters beyond my control of an administrative, clerical and contracts nature. We have but one hurdle to overcome and tomorrow I expect to be given the green light to conclude construction of the current Quenco device batch.
Those that think my estimates have been silly do not know the difficult road I have been on, the number of times people have broken their word or the immense technical challenges that only became apparent when we tried to do things at a scale of less than 3nm. I actually think we have done remarkably well to be now confident of getting to the end of this stage over the next week or so.
Those that want to snipe go ahead, I am not the slightest bit perturbed by such conduct, I after all have the advantage of knowing the facts, the skeptics merely want to posture and poke fun at people doing things they cannot.
I will not answer the barbs that pop up here, i will say thankd for the moral support from the kinder people here.
Quenco will change the World but I admit to being a bit ambitious to think I oculd do it all on my own, I now ahve the support of a number of experts from stanford and elsewhere, I now have support from many parts of the World, I now have quite a large team who are dedicated to making all this become a commercial reality as soon as humanly possible.
I admit to being too optimistic re delivery but if I had not set myself and others a goal we would find that the progress would have been slower, it is an obvious fact that this sort of work is impossilbe to accurately estimate for what seems simple has turned out to be a test at all levels. I feel though that when I read of other universities taking years to get to only half of what a quenco is then we have made incredible progress unfunded by fat government grants. This really is cutting edge work to deliver a device in such an advanced form, just think of the amn years almost every device requires, we had just me then a few dedicated scientists out of Australia and not a few more at stanford and elsewhere, in total perhaps a few man years, in nano technology that is really very little time.
I think it is strange that so little attention has been given to Quenco in comparison to the pseudo science of Steorn and such but in some ways it is good as it has allowed us to progress with little interference.
Anyway this is my last update before the launch.
Bye
Quenco falls in the same line as Hot Nuclear Fusion, It can be mathematically proven to work, It can be shown to work on a small scale,(less out than in).
Yet do we have Hot Fusion Reactors?
Quenco is not a matter of if...., it is a matter of when!
The if in Quenco, comes only from design issues and not the concept of the device. The Hot Fusion Reactor has gone through many different design issues and is likely to never become a reality even though the process is known to work.
Quenco will become reality once the required design becomes physically possible to build.
This could require a new step or process, but is still far more likely to be achieved than a working process in Hot Fusion and Quenco would also be the better source for future energy.
You could always get an electric golf cart, mobility scooter or even an old milk float, get some sceptical reporter to drive them across the USA.
I am getting sick of people who only have $ signs in their eyes !well said! humanity will remain, for the most part, inhuman until people start to embrace such ideas.
Hey people, your last shirt will not have any pockets !
So where to stuff all the money when you are dead...?
We are here on earth to give and help others...
not to die rich...and forget the poor !
Please work on your Karma !
Regards, Stefan.
I am getting sick of people who only have $ signs in their eyes !Stefan, I'm not sure who you are referring to by this post but if it's Phil I think you have him pegged completely wrong. I'm not sure if it was posted here or in some of the email (not PM but email) messages I've had with him but he (and I do assume people are being honest unless proven otherwise) has said he is not out to get rich on this by any means. He said he just wants to be able to retire to a small chicken ranch. As I understand it most of the money from licensing will go into a foundation that will provide Quenco devices to those who really need it and can't afford it including many third world countries that have no power and no clean water due to lack of power. Everything in my life experience (and training to hire quality people) tells me Phil is a very altruistic humanitarian that will do great things for the people of this planet if Quenco can succeed in navigating all the stumbling blocks placed along the path to success in getting this out to the world. My only concern at this time is whether something this potentially Earth changing will be allowed to go fully forward. In the long run I have no doubt it will be for the best of all but along the way many established businesses will likely take a big fall. But new ones will spring up and I think a real revolution will take place in the way so many things are done.
Hey people, your last shirt will not have any pockets !
So where to stuff all the money when you are dead...?
We are here on earth to give and help others...
not to die rich...and forget the poor !
Please work on your Karma !
Regards, Stefan.
I am getting sick of people who only have $ signs in their eyes !Well, it takes about 3 generations (almost 100 years) to completely change an "idea", because the old ones simply have to die out with their "idea". Change itself can happen much earlier in localized places but isn't "visible" for quite a while (for example, local communities might be far ahead already but mainstream largely ignores it). And it's exponential: It might take two decades for a less than 1% change and then suddenly becomes visible for the more aware within a few years. So it needs some patience...
I am getting sick of people who only have $ signs in their eyes !
Hey people, your last shirt will not have any pockets !
So where to stuff all the money when you are dead...?
We are here on earth to give and help others...
not to die rich...and forget the poor !
Please work on your Karma !
Regards, Stefan.
The fact that things cost money isn't going to go away anytime soon. The only one with $ signs appears to be PJH. I just don't buy the argument against making the info open!
If you don't want someone having a monopoly (which is what a patent gives for a period), or destroying the idea and making it disappear, put the info into the public domain!
Let every company make it, large and small, assuming they invest in the equipment. This should help drive the cost down....especially if they don't have to throw down 250 million for a license and then royalties! Right now its a closed-ship, large license fees, no info, royalties etc.
'Open source' the info, many companies and institutions will try and replicate and it will only act to push forward the development.....like whats happening with nuclear fusion.
There is the issue of the foundation (and its reliance on large royalties and license fees) and its charitable donations of Quenco, this could be solved somehow I guess?
Maybe I am missing a few key points here (do let me know what they are if I am!) but in new research its normally a good idea to pool resources....unless you want to have a monopoly of course!
This approach has worked well with fusion....
Another 2c from me.
MBM
If you want to give it away then you better have a patent on it or someone else will patent it and prevent you from giving it away.
Stefan, I'm not sure who you are referring to by this post but if it's Phil I think you have him pegged completely wrong. I'm not sure if it was posted here or in some of the email (not PM but email) messages I've had with him but he (and I do assume people are being honest unless proven otherwise) has said he is not out to get rich on this by any means. He said he just wants to be able to retire to a small chicken ranch. As I understand it most of the money from licensing will go into a foundation that will provide Quenco devices to those who really need it and can't afford it including many third world countries that have no power and no clean water due to lack of power. Everything in my life experience (and training to hire quality people) tells me Phil is a very altruistic humanitarian that will do great things for the people of this planet if Quenco can succeed in navigating all the stumbling blocks placed along the path to success in getting this out to the world. My only concern at this time is whether something this potentially Earth changing will be allowed to go fully forward. In the long run I have no doubt it will be for the best of all but along the way many established businesses will likely take a big fall. But new ones will spring up and I think a real revolution will take place in the way so many things are done.
Phil could at least post a few pictures of his cells driving something like an LED...
If he wanted to come out with it he should by now have prototypes that run...
Regarding the patents, if you open source something like this, nobody else could patent it,....
but if some companies have the right lawyer force and enough money they can always change some few minor
details and patent it then... probably only depends on how much money you spent for the patent lawyers to come
up with a "solution" to "be liked" by the patent office...
Anyway, if this would be put up into open source at least the guys who want to replicate it could
use the exact "recipe" and use it without paying patent license fees...
Well although it is probably almost impossible to do nanometer structure layers for the common tinker man... ;=)
There are many people who believe that giving free stuff is the solution to all problems, no, that's not the solution, because the problem was never a lack of things, the problem is always lack of proper education.
In my country Venezuela, given away everything you need, if you need to house the government gives it to you, if you need food the government gives it, up gives gasoline. The result is that people do not like working, prefer constantly asking the government for their needs, as well as those things are free they are not appreciated, everything quickly becomes corrupted, there is no maintenance. We want to invite you to come to my country to have it checked for yourself.
Everyone should have the opportunity to have everything what they need, but not given, everything has to be paid with some kind of work, there is no reason for the rich can have car but not the poor, the two should be able to have both a car and be able to do something for society in exchange, which is what provides them the car and where it is used.
100% support the policies of Philip, even licending seems cheap, as any nanotechnology factory costs billions , ask how much it costs a factory intel.
Proper education, it solves all the problems of society is to learn: do not do to another what you do not like them to do to you. That means being sensitive to the needs of others, involves working for society, involves limiting what you expect to receive and increase what you give, and so on.
My answer is simple, Quenco is 100% genuine, it has nothing in common with all the BS claims of Bedini, Steorn, Peswiki.And 100% not here...
All those that have engaged with me privately and have an assigned or reserved licence I trust are 100% happy with me.The weird thing here is that this should be compelling to absolutely nobody and it's a complete mystery as to why anyone anywhere would find it so.
I am sick and tired of being asked to prove my honesty and I do not see why I have to prove a single damn thing to any skeptic.You don't *have* to prove anything (prove is not a very good word - "provide evidence" is better) and as a result you should be content with the fact that your sincerity is worthless.
Similarly I have pulled down the website.Oh even though the quencos are available TODAY by your statements? Right now? Just a few days before the absolute final deadline and total and legitimate launch. Seems like if you had just waited two days you wouldn't have to prove anything at all. Quencos would be right there converting heat into energy.
Quenco is 100% real proved physics, the implementation at the scale of 2nm is very hard to do, we are still working on it.I thought real proved physics MEANS implementation. Can you have real proved physics without actually implementing anything?
There are now a number or commercial partners who are fully behind commercialising the Quenco.This is hard to believe unless we are talking about companies populated by Philip himself...but I guess if Firepower happened once it might happen again.
I have spent a small fortune and a chunk of my life doing this for the benefit of all.Which can't possibly skew your perceptions at all now can they....
Call me a liar or scammer in the same breath as you mention Steorn or Sterling or Rossi if you want, but you know I am not.For over a year these things were supposed to be in peoples hands. Either you are inept or you are not quite telling people the truth.
All I have done is try to share with you all what I could, some have appreciated that, some have ridiculed me.Some would have liked for you to make promises you could keep. It has been the same "it's almost done" for over a year.
I will do exactly that, I intend to ask the famous Australian Skeptic Dick Smith to do the testing.That doesn't make much sense. Dick Smith is a patron of a skeptical society he isn't a physicist or engineer. Perhaps a group of people chosen by him.
Just for fun let me tell you that he offered me $1Million for a 5Kw power source, I offered him a $20M Tesla powered by Quenco. He declined, whereas he offered Rossi $1M and Rossi declined. Of course I admit I was a little ahead of myself but also in our communication was that I offered to pay Dick a penalty of some thousands of dollars if I failed to deliver, note he was not required to pay any deposit. Of course you can ask Dick if this is true, and you can surmise from such that I am genuine, but of course you cannot know if I am deluded, only my commercial partners have enough knowledge to make such a judgement. I contacted Tesla but they refused to sell me a car without batteries.
Anyhow that really is my last comment here.I doubt it.
Tomorrow is the day. I for one look forward to reading the white paper and test results.
If you're listening Philip, there are a lot of us waiting with bated breath.
BTW - Let me know when/where I can purchase one for my tinkering in the basement :)
Please Mr.Hardcastle, do for all of us the 'small fan' demo
cause I -like many other ,too- want to see 'Madebymonkeys: live on stage' eating all his shorts (plural ;D ) !
Sincerely
CdL
And 100% not here...Your "first" post? Not likely! You simply grab another user name, so that you can talk trash. You seem a "bit" too eager to see Philip not deliver and to bad mouth him. It reminds me of two other guys on this forum, who should have been banned a long time ago.
I've been looking through the past posts here and even found that moletrap place Philip mentioned...he has been promising and promising and promising...despite several times saying "next week" or "in a few months". For well over a year. It's hard to believe that there isn't a systemic problem here. It doesn't have to be with Quenco it can just as easily be that Philip is inept. Think about it, would you accept a years worth of "it's only a few weeks away" excuses from one of your employees before you turfed them?
The weird thing here is that this should be compelling to absolutely nobody and it's a complete mystery as to why anyone anywhere would find it so.
You don't *have* to prove anything (prove is not a very good word - "provide evidence" is better) and as a result you should be content with the fact that your sincerity is worthless.
Oh even though the quencos are available TODAY by your statements? Right now? Just a few days before the absolute final deadline and total and legitimate launch. Seems like if you had just waited two days you wouldn't have to prove anything at all. Quencos would be right there converting heat into energy.
I thought real proved physics MEANS implementation. Can you have real proved physics without actually implementing anything?
This is hard to believe unless we are talking about companies populated by Philip himself...but I guess if Firepower happened once it might happen again.
Which can't possibly skew your perceptions at all now can they....
For over a year these things were supposed to be in peoples hands. Either you are inept or you are not quite telling people the truth.
Some would have liked for you to make promises you could keep. It has been the same "it's almost done" for over a year.
That doesn't make much sense. Dick Smith is a patron of a skeptical society he isn't a physicist or engineer. Perhaps a group of people chosen by him.
So wait...wait. He offered to pay you for something, you offered to give him something else entirely, offered to pay him penalties if you didn't deliver. You didn't give him either the thing he asked for or the thing you offered or pay the penalty fees.....and how exactly does this say anything about the technology you have?
I doubt it.
Your "first" post? Not likely! You simply grab another user name, so that you can talk trash. You seem a "bit" too eager to see Philip not deliver and to bad mouth him. It reminds me of two other guys on this forum, who should have been banned a long time ago.
Be PATIENT! At least he is attempting to do something, and he would not continue to post here if there was nothing to it. All of you eager beavers, can't wait for either the blueprint or are eager to "prove" why it couldn't possibly work. Sheesh, dude, why don't you build something, or wind a coil, or build an OCAL Motor. That's a sure bet winner for you....
Cheers,
Bruce
Your "first" post? Not likely! You simply grab another user name, so that you can talk trash. You seem a "bit" too eager to see Philip not deliver and to bad mouth him. It reminds me of two other guys on this forum, who should have been banned a long time ago.
Be PATIENT! At least he is attempting to do something, and he would not continue to post here if there was nothing to it. All of you eager beavers, can't wait for either the blueprint or are eager to "prove" why it couldn't possibly work. Sheesh, dude, why don't you build something, or wind a coil, or build an OCAL Motor. That's a sure bet winner for you....
Cheers,
Bruce
@vrstud
So you want to be the first one out with a quenco powered vibrator? :)
Tell me Mary; do you think that by appearing here and lazily pushing PJHs buttons with another of your breathily enthusiastic sock-puppets, you've managed to increase or decrease the chances of an update from the horses mouth?
I don't mean the chances of anything remotely interesting being observed - which is not affected by anyone's belief, opinions or attitude. Just the chances that he'll give an update of any kind?
What do you reckon?
The nature of man is to take advantage of others, and we must understand this, and consciously do the opposite.
Philip is doing a great job in many areas that had not worked before, and doing it without asking anything from anyone, not a single dollar. We are to support him as our only investment is patience, something very simple and costs nothing.
Please stop trying to Philip as his slave, and stop demanding and rather look for ways to support it, if only in words.
As I wrote before, if Philip can not have ready Quenco this day, happy to continue to support and waiting.
Philip, please write, to know you're okay physically.
The Eternal God bless to Philip.
"Who is Mary?"
Well that's a question a few people have been interested in. I'm not personally, in the definitive sense; who you are IRL is irrelevant.
But I address myself to your continuum of dull sock puppets, as you are well aware.
In terms of your response, you (and others) pushed a few buttons and got the response you were after. You now want to play wide-eyed innocence and chuck in a few light hearted exclamation marks! again, well your schtick is as monotonous as ever. Any one with a brain is aware of the issues, anyone without doesn't care what they are.
What favour do you believe he needs from anyone here, that would be served by an update? If there is anything interesting your favours aren't needed; if there isn't, your favours are pointless.
@vrstud
So you want to be the first one out with a quenco powered vibrator? :)
Your "first" post? Not likely! You simply grab another user name, so that you can talk trash.You are simply and completely wrong.
Be PATIENT! At least he is attempting to do something, and he would not continue to post here if there was nothing to it.It's not a question of patience period. Either Philip is a competent manager or he isn't. If you want me believe that Quenco really works then that forces me to believe he is poor at managing this endeavour.
I agree Bruce this sarkeizen is just a cowardly troll here under another name so he can take cheap shots at someone...and of course if TWO people think something it MUST be true.
You are simply and completely wrong.It's not a question of patience period. Either Philip is a competent manager or he isn't. If you want me believe that Quenco really works then that forces me to believe he is poor at managing this endeavour.
Philip hasn't updated the Quenco site because he has no functioning quencos. It's very likely that he can't have them as any Maxwell's Demon device is essentially a computing device. The fact that Philip maintains that there is some 2LOT hole at the quantum level not only breaks Lord Kelvins interpretation of 2LOT it would also likely violates algorithmic information theory....and of course if TWO people think something it MUST be true.
I'm here because this is a place Phil posts and I think it's worth mentioning how long and hard he's pushed the "it's almost there button". Believe if you want in Quencoism but you also must believe that Phil is a lousy manager...or cook up some special definition of "good manager" which includes his poor practices.
and how many cutting edge never-before-done earth changing projects have you accomplished to be such a bloody expert on how things are done and how long it takes????That's the point about things which have never been done before. You don't know how long it takes. So it is bad management to say you do. Philip says he does - frequently - and has been wrong every. single. time. For well over a year.
U show up here on Dec. 7th11th. Not 7th.
for first time and your first post is trying to shred somebodies reputation?So I'm trying to keep score. Is that one vote for my post on the 11th for being my first and two votes for me being someone else who has posted before? Or are you being ironic and that's three (poorly informed) votes for me being someone else?
much of what you said is outright lies.I notice that you forgot to mention exactly *what* you think is a lie.
i'd expect a new technology like this to take 5 to 10 years to be in production.Then it's bad to tell people it will be just a few months...and it's even worse to keep telling people that each time you don't make your deadline right? Just like Philip.
right now we are being asked to wait until feb. 2013Which is exactly what he said last year, at just about this time.
details are up on quentron.com with good explanations.Only if you haven't been listening to him. According to the last site update it sounded an awful lot like he was expecting a shipment of quencos with barium emitters. According to him it takes very little to package or use the device (don't you remember when he was talking about using them as hearing aid batteries? He said this.). At the very least it would be possible to wire one by hand.
i fully expected it wouldn't happen before end of this year.So did I but Philip said otherwise.
he says all technical details have been resolved. the only thing it requires now is patience.So far Philip has shown himself to be an abysmal manager. Why would you take the word of a bad manager on an issue which is primarily about production. Feel free to accept his opinion as a (geo) physicist or an EE or whatever.
Oh well we will have to wait for February to come around, lets hope all the teething troubles will be ironed out by then....and if not...when do you stop believing?
You are simply and completely wrong.It's not a question of patience period. Either Philip is a competent manager or he isn't. If you want me believe that Quenco really works then that forces me to believe he is poor at managing this endeavour.
Philip hasn't updated the Quenco site because he has no functioning quencos. It's very likely that he can't have them as any Maxwell's Demon device is essentially a computing device. The fact that Philip maintains that there is some 2LOT hole at the quantum level not only breaks Lord Kelvins interpretation of 2LOT it would also likely violates algorithmic information theory....and of course if TWO people think something it MUST be true.
I'm here because this is a place Phil posts and I think it's worth mentioning how long and hard he's pushed the "it's almost there button". Believe if you want in Quencoism but you also must believe that Phil is a lousy manager...or cook up some special definition of "good manager" which includes his poor practices.
For me, it is not a matter of "believing" or not.Actually it is. Like it or not you do have to come to one of those conclusions. Either Philip is managing this project badly or not (or you can make up some definition of "not badly" which includes bad practices). Right now, if you want to believe that Quenco is real then you pretty much have to believe that Philip has managed things badly.
It is a matter of how we treat someone else on this forum, who for all intents and purposes, owe neither you, nor I anything, not even an explanation.Uh you realize that you have strongly asserted that we owe Philip something (a certain kind of treatment) but he owes us absolutely nothing. I mean you're wrong but it's worth pointing out that inconsistency. I'd say, and you will agree because you're not a moron. That he owes us honesty.
Also, Phillip has been a member of this forum far longer than yourself.What? All of a sudden I really am a new poster? No apology either for being so utterly and completely wrong?
If you want to be discouraged over the delays, that is your perogative.I'm pointing out some rather obvious logical consequences of someone who has said "a few more weeks" for well over a year.
only posts out of respect for some members in this forum.Please restrict yourself to stating things you can actually know.
As many years as some of us here have been working on projects, another couple of months is hardly a big deal at all.Ok and when he fails in Feb? How about then? June? He fails there too? December? In December 2013 he says "It will be done in February 2014 for sure". At what point - if you can not believe that Quenco isn't working. Do you have to believe that Phillip sucked in a deep and abiding way at managing this? 2015? 2016? 2020? Just let me know what it will take.
Actually it is. Like it or not you do have to come to one of those conclusions. Either Philip is managing this project badly or not (or you can make up some definition of "not badly" which includes bad practices). Right now, if you want to believe that Quenco is real then you pretty much have to believe that Philip has managed things badly.Uh you realize that you have strongly asserted that we owe Philip something (a certain kind of treatment) but he owes us absolutely nothing. I mean you're wrong but it's worth pointing out that inconsistency. I'd say, and you will agree because you're not a moron. That he owes us honesty.
If Philip is managing the project, not up to your standards or specifications, I suggest you write him your brilliant managerial assistance that will help him. Considering that you have built nothing, nor contributed nothing to this forum, but taking up useless bandwidth to be critical of a man because you feel "let down" or "lied to" somehow, get over it dude! And get over yourself. My last post to you should have been enough, but know, you have to keep on..... like a troll would. Are you a troll, just repeating and repeating and repeating yourself? It is HIS project to do with what he will. He can take it and shut it down tomorrow if he chooses. Or he can delay until 2016. Truth is, who really cares? It will be here when it get here, if it gets here. All of your pissing in the wind contributes nothing to the end result... is MY point. Get it? ::) ::) ~ Bruce
However either he has been dishonest about his schedules OR he has been inept. Which is just being dishonest about the level of confidence we should have. For example right now he is saying "I have no doubt we will succeed in February" so if he fails there in a place where he has ZERO doubt. Isn't that an example of dishonesty? Having no doubt when you know that you should? You either know you know for sure or you are lying that you know for sure.What? All of a sudden I really am a new poster? No apology either for being so utterly and completely wrong?I'm pointing out some rather obvious logical consequences of someone who has said "a few more weeks" for well over a year.Please restrict yourself to stating things you can actually know.Ok and when he fails in Feb? How about then? June? He fails there too? December? In December 2013 he says "It will be done in February 2014 for sure". At what point - if you can not believe that Quenco isn't working. Do you have to believe that Phillip sucked in a deep and abiding way at managing this? 2015? 2016? 2020? Just let me know what it will take.
If Philip is managing the project, not up to your standards or specifications, I suggest you write him your brilliant managerial assistance that will help him.It's not even a question of MY standards. It's a question of "what standards are reasonable?".
Considering that you have built nothing,Again please confine yourself to statements you can know.
nor contributed nothing to this forum, but taking up useless bandwidth to be critical of a man because you feel "let down" or "lied to" somehowAgain it's not a question of how I feel. It's a simple question of what is reasonable. Is it reasonable to believe that Philip managed this project badly or not. If the tech is real then it's hard to argue that he didn't do things poorly. Again it's not a question of "feeling" lied to. Either he told the truth or he didn't. Either he knew that the deadlines were stupidly optimistic or he didn't. If he did then he lied to us. If he didn't he lied implicitly in terms of confidence he portrayed.
My last post to you should have been enoughThe only person with a humongous ego here appears to be you. Or did you get elected to the "council who decides what is and is not enough"....Must have missed the memo.
It is HIS project to do with what he will. He can take it and shut it down tomorrow if he chooses.Nobody has questioned that...please confine yourself to relevant arguments.
Truth is, who really cares? It will be here when it get here, if it gets here.So if someone said to you every day for a year: "It will get here tomorrow, for sure!" that doesn't erode your faith in their statement? What about two years? Twenty? No? Never? You would never, ever change your estimation of their word regardless? I suspect you're attempting to shift the discussion here because it's uncomfortable for you. That's just speculation though.
All of your pissing in the wind contributes nothing to the end result... is MY point. Get it?However pointing out that someone is probably shouldn't be trusted in a particular sense with rather well thought out arguments (a statmentto which you will make a criticism without substance) might shift peoples attention to something more worthwhile.
Apparently some nasty troll hereI figure someone like Philip would be old enough to use the term "troll" in it's classical sense.
wants me to admit I am not good at management, ok I will admit that, I will also say that I am naive, overly optimistic, believe experts, have faith in the overall good of humanity and hope that we are all prepared to be honest with each other when there is so much as stake.How about saying "I, Phil Hardcastle suck at management"? I've read over a number of your hugely boastful posts you've placed here and in that moletrap place you mentioned. Considering how much business acumen you say you have. Is it really reasonable to accept the "I was fooled" excuse? How many times were you fooled? It seems like a lot, it's been over a year apparently. Again, at what point SHOULD we discount your credibility? Feb? Mar? December? Feb 2014?
Why some people want Quenco to be wrong or fools gold I cannot fathomI can't fathom all the strawmen in your post. What people want is orthogonal to what is being discussed.
, all I can say is that I use my real name, that I am 100% sure that Quenco will become the power generation device that will power our futures and that it will be very very cheap....and nobody should find that compelling in and of itself.
That people call me names is hurtful, it bothers me, I have children and friends that read and hear things, and friends and acquaintances that become aware of these cheap shots.Please differentiate between describing you and calling you a name. I can only speak for myself but I'm making a pretty objective, if colourful analysis. Really, I've met some pretty terrible managers...and none of them would have made the scheduling errors you appear to make...repeatedly...for over a year.
However at this stage I know that no such negative and viscous attacks can stop something now in so many hands, people who know all I have said is true and that Quenco is beyond doubt.Yawn. There is simply no such thing. Open your mind even a micrometer. The amount of evidence for 2LOT outweighs the amount you have produced against it by so many orders of magnitude it's not even funny. However you are asking people to doubt based pretty much entirely on your word. So if something like 2LOT can be in doubt - even slightly. Then clearly YOUR ideas can not, by extension be without doubt. Logic.
but once these are done we can make a batch of quenco just like any production line.heard it before.
my job is done in Februaryheard it before.
Now this really is my last post for this yearheard it before.
but I will come back once Quenco is finished so I can gloat at the noted silence of some.Definitely heard that before too.
Hi All,Hi Philip,
Just popped in to wish you all a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
I have posted my latest excuse on the quentron website :-)
Apparently some nasty troll here wants me to admit I am not good at management, ok I will admit that, I will also say that I am naive, overly optimistic, believe experts, have faith in the overall good of humanity and hope that we are all prepared to be honest with each other when there is so much as stake.
Why some people want Quenco to be wrong or fools gold I cannot fathom, all I can say is that I use my real name, that I am 100% sure that Quenco will become the power generation device that will power our futures and that it will be very very cheap.
That people call me names is hurtful, it bothers me, I have children and friends that read and hear things, and friends and acquaintances that become aware of these cheap shots. However at this stage I know that no such negative and viscous attacks can stop something now in so many hands, people who know all I have said is true and that Quenco is beyond doubt.
I am happy with the failures of the last few months because they were only delays. The delays caused by issues not related to Quenco and outside my control gave me / us time to deal with other matters that now makes building Quenco easy. For instance when I first arrived at Stanford the prior work done by Australian scientists gave me a head start but when we considered the need to reduce dimensions still further to overcome the substitution of barium (because we could not get permission for its use) with Yttrium, we came up against some issues regarding dielectric defects and strength, in the time we had we found a method using RTA (rapid thermal annealing wherein we could improve the dielectric properties by about 70x. We also worked out a reliable method to selectively etch SiO2 without any damage to HfO2. All in all we lost time to make the quenco this year but we used the time productively such that our work in February is now just a matter of schedule, not of trail and error, of course we still need to apply process controls of characterization and witness plates, but once these are done we can make a batch of quenco just like any production line. NOTE single layer at this point in time.
As far as expected results with the ability to have better dielectric strength and thinner layers the use of a 3.1ev emitter (yttrium) in no way limits the quenco, in other words we are totally comfortable with device currents of more than 1,000A per cm2, and we now feel that we can increase the voltage per layer to 100mV. Without question multilayer Quenco will always be limited by the ability to get heat in so talk of 10,000A per cm2 is irrelevant but nonetheless the modelling says that is easily achieved.
I still make the point that the big inventions and tasks ahead are how to use Quenco to it maximum utility. I have said it to many and will say it now, my job is done in February, after the release of the samples to the licencees a lot of money flows to the foundation, not to me, and that becomes the premier research organisation to take Quenco forward.
I note someone called me greedy and such, may i say that is unfair, check the overunity prize and see that I have made the largest pledge of funds, and that my website (crude as it is) stated that all the royalties go to the foundation. My reasoning for not making this open source are based upon a lot of consideration of submissions made from forum members and others. Realities are that only a very small number of people have the money to get things going, without those industrialists quenco cannot do anything for climate change and nothing for the poor. If you believe that open sourcing is a better option then you are mistaken, it sounds good but then so does socialism. The best we can do is to make a good deal with the devil (Capitalism).
Now this really is my last post for this year but I will come back once Quenco is finished so I can gloat at the noted silence of some.
BYE
Apparently some nasty troll here wants me to admit I am not good at management, ok I will admit that, I will also say that I am naive, overly optimistic, believe experts, have faith in the overall good of humanity and hope that we are all prepared to be honest with each other when there is so much as stake.
I think we should all choose to ignore the attention seeking trolls from this point.Hmmm....Philip is supposedly against namecalling but that's pretty much all you guys are doing. Calling someone a "troll" is namecalling and also an implicit ad hominem attack. Look it's ok to like Philip for whatever reasons but there's no reason to let go of your rationality at the same time. I've got friends who I would never loan more than a dollar to. They're still my friends but objective data says that they would use the money to hurt themselves or someone else. So in order to be responsible with my money I have to make decisions about probable outcomes based on objective data.
Let the trolls alone, they only will change with proper education.More namecalling and ad hominem.
So the solution to the world's problems, not is Quenco, the solution is integral education, learn to think, to reason, learn to be sensitive, to learn to work together, learn to think out of the box, learn to be a real human.Exactly where does Philp do any of this. Really Quenco is exceptionally scant on information, like near nothing useful. Philip can't or won't respond to arguments, has zero doubts (why doesn't that worry anyone?). This is the world you think is better. Where everyone tells you unlikely things and never, ever has to produce useful evidence to support this? Is that really thinking? It sounds like the opposite. Philips arguments are by and large arguments from authority...so is that "reasoning" or "thinking"? Logicians, thinkers would probably say "no".
Thanks for the info Phil. Hope you have a great Christmas home in Australia.Where was the info? If you look closely he spent a fair amount of time talking about things irrelevant to the fact that quencos - which he was expecting to be delivered with barium emitters and require so little finishing work that they would be ready for the international product launch in a couple of days - mostly for pictures.
The facts are that most skeptics are just jealous people that have accomplished nothing in their own life and have little self esteem.
More namecalling and ad hominem.Exactly where does Philp do any of this.
This is the world you think is better. Where everyone tells you unlikely things and never, ever has to produce useful evidence to support this? Is that really thinking? It sounds like the opposite. Philips arguments are by and large arguments from authority...so is that "reasoning" or "thinking"? Logicians, thinkers would probably say "no".
You also have avoided my question. What happens in Feb? Will you still think Philip knows what he's talking about when he says "June". What about in June? What if December 2013 he says "for sure in Feb 2014" are you still going to assume that he knows what he's talking about? If so, when does your judgement shift?
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.Hi Lumen,
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.
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 !
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.
The problem is that many people here are late in arriving. Philip had posted many different updates on his web pageYou 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.
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.
There are many devices that exhibit similar properties to the operation of a Quenco chip if you look into it.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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
if this is not in February don't worryIf 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?
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.
Hi Lumen,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.
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.
@sarkeizenHey Hollander.
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.
@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.
***
*** Is the statement about the emitter current being a max of 100nA true?
***
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? >:( :o ???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.
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.
If I make a silly error let me know, I do not proof read and self editing is notorious for not seeing typo's.:o You make ONLY silly errors.
http://quentron.com/theory.htmlCan anyone explain to me why any of this is actually useful to the discussion.
Save your outrage for something you're entitled to feel outraged about.Yawn. Sorry you weren't elected to the high-and-mighty council (although you do appear to think yourself high and mighty) of who gets to decide what people are allowed to get outraged about.
So he decides to post after all. So what? That signifies nothing, and nobody's putting a gun to your head to force you to read it.So many logical flaws so little time. Of course it signifies something (at least that he wanted to post or do you deny that) try to be smarter ok?
The explanation he's engaging in on his own website says up front that it will be posted piece by piece, with an eye to making it accessible to the layman. That may not suit you, but that's just tough, isn't it?It's not a question of who it's accessible to but rather that it's fluff.
And even if it leads to nothing, there's utility in dissecting what the error is, and where the slip in reasoning occurs specificallyYou really don't understand do you? The ability to circumvent the 2LOT is assumed in the web page. How can we discuss the error in reasoning EXCEPT to point out that he hasn't discussed the actual point in contention. Which I did.
So keep at it Phil....or post something useful.
I had a friend look over the Quenco theory page and he had the following comments:
"Available energy in such a thermodynamic system is given by the Gibbs free
energy (dG):
dG=dH-TdS
He has failed to take into account the change in entropy (dS) as an
electron tunnels across a barrier (dH), this puts pay to any
such system for generating energy this way from a system initially in
thermal equilibrium with its environment, ALWAYS, even in a quantum system.
The Maxwell's demon conundrum has been well studied over the past 150 years
and periodically people come up with ways to do it (just like perpetual
motion machines) and a proper accounting of the entropy change is generally what
has been overlooked."
For the record, I believe him.
Of course I could be wrong, since this is only proven by existing Physics and not the new Physics of shitzforbrains.Please stop whining.
This is not you Madebymonkeys, I believe you may actually be trying to find real value in this concept unlike some others.
Please stop whining.
I haven't made up any new physics. I've simply stated that Phillip's theory page has essentially begged the question. How can you not see that?
If you do some research on the net you will be surprised.
Feel free to show a link or the secret words to write into the search engine (I tried, without any success); I want to be surprised.
Type 'power from tunnel diodes' or something like that.
Quenco sounds like the long tried tunnel diode experiment but with the bias provided by the dissimilar metals...maybe?
If you do some research on the net you will be surprised.I don't understand this as an argument. Philip, as far as I can see begs pretty much the entire question surrounding his device. So your idea is to search the internet for similar devices. Presumably ones that do explain their theory. However such devices can't actually be breaking 2LOT in a very well-defined way - i.e. published in peer reviewed journals. Which means they themselves might or might not work.
the impossibility of the Sebithenco or the Quenco as a Maxwellian Demon I think it is worth noting that the most persistent argument is that a demon would need to expend energy in sorting hot from cold, fast from slow. It is clearly not the case in either the Sebithenco or Quenco, the sorting is of energy by electrostatics where the sorted particles act only against static charge. So for those that wish to deal with this other than by evidence (replicated working Sebithenco's)Oh it's "clearly not the case" good I was worried there. I don't really understand why Phil thinks he gets to be exempt from the rules of information theory or physics. To wit, if "electrostatics" really meant anything wrt to building a Maxwell's Demon then you could describe a simple case without all the fiddling around with 1880's technology. In other words you could build an "electrostatic Demon" at least hypothetically. Phil should have *started* with this in he useless "theory" section. Showing how things work at the atomic level, how his "electrostatic trapdoor" (or whatever) is exempt. Otherwise the right assumption is that it has the same drawbacks of Feynman's machine or Smoluchowski's.
Even arguments involving information theory propose that there is an energy cost in observation that is greater than the benefit of the particle energy partition.This is a particularly interesting misunderstanding of Szilard’s thought experiment. Actually it's the erasing of memory which creates the "missing" entropy. Phil could assert that his demon has no memory, in which case it can not encode information in any state. Which means it can not operate as a demon. No information means, no decision.
I think Philip has a difficult road ahead so giving him more time is no problem for me. (I have nothing invested anyway)That's not answering the question I keep asking. What does waiting do to your confidence in Philip. If the answer is "nothing" perhaps you need to think about that. So again if in 2020 Philip is still saying February 2021...are you seriously telling me you would take him precisely as seriously as you would today? After eight separate cases of "in February"?
However I do like to hear his progress updates once in a while so pissing him off so he does not post here is just stupid!Phil is trying to produce a product...it is entirely in his self-interest to post here or on his website. Not to mention why is your outcome the only one possible? Perhaps if there is some actual group of people funding his efforts maybe they'll replace him and Quenco will become a reality much more quickly or updates will be realistic instead of inept.
That's not answering the question I keep asking. What does waiting do to your confidence in Philip. If the answer is "nothing" perhaps you need to think about that. So again if in 2020 Philip is still saying February 2021...are you seriously telling me you would take him precisely as seriously as you would today? After eight separate cases of "in February"?Phil is trying to produce a product...it is entirely in his self-interest to post here or on his website. Not to mention why is your outcome the only one possible? Perhaps if there is some actual group of people funding his efforts maybe they'll replace him and Quenco will become a reality much more quickly or updates will be realistic instead of inept.
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=WO&NR=2009060435A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20090514&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP
output > input : does he have a functional model ?
Sincerely
CdL
So you say you have giving up on Hot Fusion?So let's first define some terms:
it is proven to workAgain the term "work" means different things depending on which one of those terms you are using.
we just need another 10 years or about that to get it to work
I will wait a few more months to see if Philip and his team provide some results on something
Given what I believe to understand of how the Quenco should operate and being an engineer for 30 years, I would expect the Quenco development from theory to product to easily exceed a year.So you agree that Philip who constantly says "next week" or "next month" is either incompetent or lying? (if he knows better he isn't saying and if he doesn't he shouldn't be saying)
If you do not have any concept of how Quenco could operate or what may be required to construct the device and the issues that crop up, then I agree that one of little knowledge would dispair easily and give up after a few statements of one showing their optimisim, that did not work out well.LOL. So when someone has the expectation that Quenco should have been delivered last Feb or last Dec. They are doing so because "they don't have any concept of how Quenco could operate or what maybe requried to construct the device".
This is not a demand of Philip since I have no right to demand anything of him.Not even honesty? You think it's okay for him to lie to people here? How about competency? If someone knows they can't do a job shouldn't they step down? What about someone who can't do a job (such as manage timelines) shouldn't they get someone else to do it? If you can't manage timelines and you know it but you keep making earnest statements about how there is zero doubt that you won't deliver on day X? Isn't that being dishonest?
Hope some of you will find these urls interesting.but not violate 2LOT...you are only making the world dumber.
Maxwell's demon goes quantum, can do work, write and erase data.
Not even honesty? You think it's okay for him to lie to people here? How about competency? If someone knows they can't do a job shouldn't they step down? What about someone who can't do a job (such as manage timelines) shouldn't they get someone else to do it? If you can't manage timelines and you know it but you keep making earnest statements about how there is zero doubt that you won't deliver on day X? Isn't that being dishonest?
Even you know that you're only a liar if you know it isn't true.
If someone continues to make statements about timelines and they miss those timelines, the responsibility falls on whoever has an expectation that the timeline will be met to adjust their expectation accordingly. That adjustment is your responsibility, not his.
But let's baldly accept that PJH is a poor manager and / or poor at estimating contingency?. And? How thrilled should I be at the prospect of a competent manager. My blood fair sings with the thrill.
Even you know that you're only a liar if you know it isn't true.You should read what I post. I've said that makes Philip incompetent at the task of management of timelines and perhaps management of this project in general.
If someone continues to make statements about timelines and they miss those timelines, the responsibility falls on whoever has an expectation that the timeline will be met to adjust their expectation accordingly. That adjustment is your responsibility, not his....and that's what I've actually said if you actually read what I wrote - Try it sometime! That's the question nobody will answer. What happens to YOUR confidence in Philip's next deadline should he miss February. Does it stay the same or does it go down? So far no answer from the peanut gallery - lots of attempts to avoid answering the question. The fact is, just about every doofus in this thread has trivialized waiting a few months. It's kind of obvious that constitutes an expectation of some kind. Hence each one of those people must, by YOUR standards have an adjusted confidence value concerning his next timeline. Now if everyone wants to clam up and not talk about it that's their prerogative. However it is a pretty humongous Elephant-in-the-room.
But let's baldly accept that PJH is a poor manager and / or poor at estimating contingency?. And? How thrilled should I be at the prospect of a competent manager. My blood fair sings with the thrill.Yawn. Even if you attempt to exempt yourself from any non-trivial expectations regarding Quenco it's clear that people here DO have expectations.
Even arguments involving information theory propose that there is an energy cost in observation that is greater than the benefit of the particle energy partition, though it is oft expressed as an increase in entropy caused by lost information, incredulously one widely accepted argument is that the Demon runs out of paper upon which to write down observations and so must reuse the paper for new entries, I must say it is from such tripe and silly arguments that I always felt there was a reason and justification to doubt Lord Kelvin and search for a viable Demon, so here I am.............. and it only took me 34 years.LOL. Philip is very concerned about what I say but tries not to appear so.
And he claims that the experiment that would settle it once and for all has been subject to several delays for other practical reasons. I'm perfectly happy to believe all of those claims. YMMV.In other words you have an expectation. A probability that in February that Philip's prediction is correct P(Feb2013) = ? (probably .99999 for you) ;-)
Is there a moderator for this board, or almost ANY board? We should change the name of our forum perhaps to "Overpester.com".
If you too are getting sick and tired of the badgering, and pestering of and by the trolls, both former and recent ones, please comment until we can get some moderation back on this forum, please, for the love of God.
Contrariwise. If someone speaks from a position of claimed knowledge, but in fact does not possess that knowledge, then they lie. When a preacher stands in a pulpit and says that you will have life everlasting if you only have faith in Jesus.... he lies, even though he might think he speaks the truth, because he does not have the knowledge that he claims to have.... only a strong belief. Had he said "I _believe_ that you will have life everlasting blah blah..." Then he might be speaking the truth.I don't think that you improved your credibility with an attack on what God has said, or his "preachers" that teach what God has said, using a statement like this. God gives every man the measure of faith. It is up to you to take the initiative to learn about faith in God and use it correctly in your life. It is found in His book, it is His Word. It is like a person that talks bad about physics, knowing something about it, but won't believe it, because they won't read the book or listen to the teacher and be willing to learn from the source. Your statement is beneath the standards that you strive to attain to, and does not improve or support your point of view. Your analogy is counter productive.
PJH is telling us he knows things, when he only believes them. The fact that he might not be able to distinguish between his knowledge and his beliefs only means that he might not be completely aware that he is telling porkies.... it does not alter the veracity -- or lack of it---- of his claims.
In other words you have an expectation. A probability that in February that Philip's prediction is correct P(Feb2013) = ? (probably .99999 for you) ;-)
Again, and again, and again, and again. What happens to that value when you are now looking at P(June2013)? or P(Dec2013) or P(Dec2020)? Presumably it goes down. Right?
Why does everyone here squirm at this question?
and the insistence that a probability should be assigned in this way is your fetish.Not really. In fact if you read what I wrote you'd see that I'm not insisting that you quantify to some particular degree of precision.
I wouldn't assign a numeric probability to any of them.This is more of an aside but...
But why would I bother? What would it achieve?Ability to have a consistent and rational basis for your decisions. Perhaps that's not of value to you?
As it stands your question is impossible to answer (for me) because you aren't defining it with enough precision.Probably not true.
Prediction of what event?The probability that Philips next date will be met with the outcomes he specifies.
I'm familiar with numbers and the notion of probability.Not enough to know that there exists a probability to express your confidence.
You say I assign P(Feb2003) > 0 - how do you come to this conclusion, particularly given that I've offered several ways I interpret "deliver" ?Watching you is like watching a high-school debater try to weasel out of a poor argument. Firstly you're kind of lying. What you asked for was an event. Philip producing what he said he would produce by the end of February is an event.
For more important decisions - those where I have some control over the eventual outcome - I might be inclined to quantify the various probabilities a bit more carefully.So only events where you have some control over the outcome are worth quantifying? That's refreshingly naive - reminds me of every bad manager I've met . On the other hand perhaps you're claiming that something you spend your time on is out of your control? or maybe that you time isn't worth very much?
I am still unable to answer your question, because you aren't being precise enough. It depends.It's not really so hard. Philip has claimed that some set of outcomes will be realized by February 2013. Perhaps you think this is the empty set if so you should say so. If you don't think it's the empty set then you should be able to say if you think the P of all outcomes being realized is > 0. If you really think what he has said would be realized is so vague and undefinable. Then why not post here and ask him to be clearer...seemingly he checks here so often I expect to see his breath on the glass.
Enough to know that the sort of false precision you seem to seek is pointless from any angle.Utterly wrong. Congratulations! If there's an event there's a probability. If there's a probability there's a level of precision it can be known to. If you can't specify any level of precision that's practically equivalent to not knowing what you're talking about wrt probability anyway. The point is being able to state if that probability changes if in Feb 2013 Philip doesn't deliver - if it goes up or down and if so perhaps some idea as to how much. Now of course such a statement would be ceteris paribus and if Philip fails then he will probably offer some reason. Now you may decide then that your P(June2013) or whatever is different than what you give today in fact because P(June2013) is according to Philip "Just around the corner, for sure with even less doubt than ever before" and in your wise and considered opinion you might decide that means your new P(June2013) == P(Feb2013). In which case, we now know something about how much that information is worth to you probabilistic speaking.
Explain exactly how you interpret that remark. Be precise.Please specify where you need further precision. Be precise for a change.
By my interpretation, there are several outcomes, some that I've listed, each of which I'd consider differently.Wow too bad nobody has ever figured out a way to calculate the probability of more than one event happening at the same time. If you mean a set of outcomes that you interpret Philip has stated would happen by the end of February. Then there exists some probability of the set being delivered.
Lazy strawman. I don't claim that as an exhaustive lists of things I consider worth spending effort to quantify.Actually if you read carefully I didn't say you did...I gave a few statements which covers all the bases. Anyway you're kind of missing the point. You appear to be saying that something where the outcome is beyond your control then there's no need to quantify. As irrelevant as that is, I find the attitude kind of interesting.
I have no big decision to make on the matter, my opinion won't change events, and there's no penalty for me if I misjudge.Always trying to avoid the question. Finally you at least appear to agree that there exists a series of outcomes which you interpret Philip says will arrive by the end of February 2013...that only took like four posts to reach a rather obvious interpretation. If you believe that one of them is zero then say so. Philip will not deliver what he said in Feb 2013. Man you could have made that easier. If you believe that all are > 0 then. I'd like to know if you give me some idea as to how much and if the world-saddening event occurs in Feb 2013 (Philip does not deliver all these things) what that does to your belief about P(June2013).
You're the only one with a hard-on for quantifying the probability of events related to PJHs claims in this way (or rather as a hook to troll)I'm interested if people can tell me if they think the probability of him delivering on his claims concerning P(Feb2013) changes in one direction or another based on the outcome. The one who actually wanted to discuss - that is focused in on - quantification was..well...YOU. Essentially you took an example I gave *using* a classically quantified probability as an illustration. From there you started talking about everything but a rather obvious central point I have been making for days. My responses to you was just me being polite. In fact in several places I mention clear enough that one would think a mrsean2k would understand that some particular degree of precision was not necessary (also the obvious consequence that claiming that no degree of precision is probably equivalent to saying you don't know what you're talking about).
The fact that such analysis is possible has no bearing on the utility of me performing it; my gut feeling is plenty good enough given the level of risk to me (zero).Risk is often looked at as a product of probability and impact. It seems a little ingenuous to claim that you have nothing invested. I mean you do spend time here. You seem to have read Philips posts enough to come up with a probability > 0 that he's going to deliver something useful in February - you can play denial games with this if you like. So your risk, if you're being honest is probably at least a little above zero.
The effort to be any more precise would be wasted effort for me in this set of circumstances.If you're talking about being more precise to me then please confine yourself to making statements you can know. You said a statement of mine was not precise enough, presumably you know where the imprecision lies. If not, I'd guess this was yet another dishonest dodge.
Unfortunately your tiresome attitude means I won't be sharing my opinion with you - if you'd been more straightforward and honest in your approach, maybe I would have done.What about the fort you're building in your backyard? I won't be invited there either I guess. What about the super-secret club handshake? *sigh* Woe is me.
Something for you to think about in future.That's you're silly and condescending?
I'm interested if people can tell me if they think the probability of him delivering on his claims concerning P(Feb2013) changes in one direction or another based on the outcome. You were actually the one who wanted to discuss - that is focused in on - an example I gave *using* a classically quantified probability as an illustration. From there you started looking at everything but this central point. I was just being polite by responding. In fact in several places I mention clear enough that one would think a mrsean2k would understand that some particular degree of precision was not necessary but claiming that no degree of precision is probably equivalent to saying you don't know what you're talking about.A NEW record~ ! 27 Posts to say absolutely NOTHING of consequence!
But I guess you like to blame others.Risk is often looked at as a product of probability and impact. It seems a little ingenuous to claim that you have nothing invested. I mean you do spend time here. You seem to have read Philips posts enough to come up with a probability > 0 that he's going to deliver something useful in February - you can play denial games with this if you like. So your risk, if you're being honest is probably at least a little above zero.
Also you claimed that quantification was pointless. Now that argument has been killed all you have left is a "I don't wanna". Nobody said you had to.If you're talking about being more precise to me then please confine yourself to making statements you can know. You said a statement was not precise enough, presumably you know where the imprecision lies. If not, I'd guess this was yet another dishonest dodge.What about the fort you're building in your backyard? I won't be invited there either I guess. What about the super-secret club handshake? *sigh* Woe is me.
Seriously?! Are you fifteen?
Nobody said you had to answer. I was actually at a mrsean2k level of clarity on this point. I have no expectation of you answering. I do find it interesting that an incredibly simple process, a kind that not only most people do every single day in one way or another but everyone here who has some kind of expectation for Philip on February 2013 has done in some respect. Can't be done by anyone here when we change one assumption likewise the incredible amount of twisting and turning people e.g. YOU go through to avoid answering is interesting too.
Yes feel free to blame me. I mean you've been pushing hard for an excuse not to answer ever since I got you trapped on the subject. This should make you all feel off the hook now. Bruce can chime in with one of his backpatting posts ("Good one Mrsean2k. I've felt that in addition to more moderation what this board needs is a rule that says no question needs to be honoured unless the asker pays proper respect to Phil...and me...and we get to define 'proper'") . If all y'all needed was an excuse there are easier ways.
Also you're kind of lying again. I've been completely straightforward and honest. You on the other hand had tried to pull a few fast ones in this discussion.That's you're silly and condescending?
A NEW record~ ! 27 Posts to say absolutely NOTHING of consequence!I find it a bit ironic that someone who's last few posts are primarily back-patting and pleas for moderation would balk at the idea that knowing something about the probabilities people assign to Philip's potential failure in February 2013 is useful. As I said before what I'm talking about isn't exactly without precedent among mathematicians.
NOW THAT WAS...Ever get the feeling you're trying way too hard?
yes I am getting sick and tired of the badgering !You and me both sister.
HHMMMmmm
Definately Looped it,probably 10 ways to hades......
I had no idea you could beat a horse for that long.
some guys have to talk to the wife, watch jeopardy reruns or hide on the putor.
Personally I think he should go knit or build something.
Is there a moderator for this board, or almost ANY board? We should change the name of our forum perhaps to "Overpester.com".
If you too are getting sick and tired of the badgering, and pestering of and by the trolls, both former and recent ones, please comment until we can get some moderation back on this forum, please, for the love of God.
I type fast! So I can buy more crack! So I can type fast....To buy more crack.....To type faster..............and lumen gives a good example of badgering. Considering how much time is spent by Bruce_TPU, lumen and mrsean2k in their own badgering and other forms of aggressive behavior. Don't you think your pleas for moderation exceed some kind of irony limit?
Anyone know this guy?
Now THAT was funny!
...and lumen gives a good example of badgering. Considering how much time is spent by Bruce_TPU, lumen and mrsean2k in their own badgering and other forms of aggressive behavior. Don't you think your pleas for moderation exceed some kind of irony limit?
On the other hand lumen didn't explicitly *say* s/he was against badgering so maybe s/he's for it.
OK, You take the side of YES Quenco is True, and I will debate that it is FALSE
So you did not actually want a debate, you just wanted to tell everyone that you do not think Phil is right and that you know better.
How about we keep the topic on the subject of why this wont work (or even, why it will).
Lots of talk right now about it working and 'believe in PJH' but no sane reason why it will work! Lots of reasons why it won't.
How about a debate?!
You asked for a debate on science, I thought, but apparently you want to hold the debate about why PJH should be believed if he fails to meet your imposed deadline.
You have the floor to post here why his device will not work, so go ahead. Arguments that it will not work because he did not meet a timetable are just stupid and look like trolling. You asked for a debate on the subject, shame you do not do what you asked for.
...why PJH should be believed if he fails to meet your imposed deadline.The deadlines being discussed are not MBM's or mine they are set by Philip, the outcomes are set by Philip. Out of curiosity how is it that you don't recognize that? Illiteracy?
I offered a debate as a suggestion to the forum. As I have posted, I'm no expert on science. You start us off.
I don't believe PJH but that's based on historical reasons. The debate would be about quenco. Not sure how you assumed I meant something different.
It's an idea offered to the forum as I said - I ain't the expert and don't know (which any scientific accuracy) whether it will work or not.
Debating a timetable or deadline is stupid - that's not what I am doing, read the post.
but it is pointless to simply take a position in science based upon expectationsThat's barely even English. Interesting position. According to you, Philip could say "yes, I will have this tomorrow with zero doubt" every day and fail every day for dozens of years and that would say nothing about his technology. So you don't think all information which is confirming to a result has to contribute to the probability of said result? Such beliefs make Baby Bayes cry. I'd love to engage on this issue but it seems like most people here aren't exactly equipped.
science is science and let's stick to facts if we are going to have a meaningful debate.You know a few points have been raised concerning information theory...you seem pretty mute about them.
I see from the lots of stupid irritating posts that this forum is currently infested with a low life who you all rightfully ignore, I too will ignore that persons childish attempts to gain attention except to note such in this post.After post after post from lumen, Bruce_TPU and mrsean2k isn't it a little crazy to pretend they were ignoring me? What makes you think this is about gaining attention? I mean Bruce_TPU produced some of the most insubstantial posts in the last 100 on this thread and somehow you think I'm just about trying to get attention? I mean just look at what he posted below...
That's barely even English. Interesting position. According to you, Philip could say "yes, I will have this tomorrow with zero doubt" every day and fail every day for dozens of years and that would say nothing about his technology. So you don't think all information which is confirming to a result has to contribute to the probability of said result? Such beliefs make Baby Bayes cry. I'd love to engage on this issue but it seems like most people here aren't exactly equipped. You know a few points have been raised concerning information theory...you seem pretty mute about them.After post after post from lumen, Bruce_TPU and mrsean2k isn't it a little crazy to pretend they were ignoring me? What makes you think this is about gaining attention? I mean Bruce_TPU produced some of the most insubstantial posts in the last 100 on this thread and somehow you think I'm just about trying to get attention?Hey TROLL,
Philip's site is now showing a lot of information but now there is no mention of a delivery date in February. That sounds like the fishing pole is out again to me.
A good analogy for Quentron would be when a kid first goes to an Ikea store. He sees a model bedroom and when he goes to check out the big flat-screen TV he discovers that it's just a hollow cardboard box with printed paper glued to the surfaces.
In my opinion, and based on what I have seen (or more appropriately not seen) from Philip, is that this whole thing is not real. The fantastic claims are simply too fantastic and Quentron as a company feels completely virtual. Like the whole company is just a web site, an email address, and a cell phone number and no more than that.
Time will tell if Philip can add any sense of substance or deliver anything in February.
The bigger the potential of a new technology the bigger the propaganda and sabotage attempts become. It's obvious this thread has become rife with them. Why would anyone think for a minute that the many muliti-billion and trillion dollar industries that would be affected by such a technology would just lay down and let it run over them? And why would they try to buy out such a tech when propaganda and sabotage work so well? Armchair speculators here or paid trolls or maybe those who fear their jobs may disintegrate from such a tech or are just afraid of change? Why not just wait and see where this technology goes? Unless you have an agenda of course. For some that will be like little kids waiting to say 'I told you so'. For others I suspect it will be the reward of something for trolling.
We had hoped to have completed the work by November but we had an unexpected labour issue that cost us over a month.
The bigger the potential of a new technology the bigger the propaganda and sabotage attempts become. It's obvious this thread has become rife with them.I'd be laughing if this wasn't so sad. Are you actually suggesting that I'm the best propaganda a trillion dollar company can buy?
Armchair speculators here or paid trolls or maybe those who fear their jobs may disintegrate from such a tech or are just afraid of change?Dude, I've made two points. One Philip agrees with - that he sucks at management - which of course should imply something about his next deadline and the other he's been unwilling or unable to formulate an answer to - which was that he's violating information theory (and probably computational complexity theory)
Why not just wait and see where this technology goes? Unless you have an agenda of course.Why not just talk about all of the shortcomings of Philip and his hypothetical device? Unless you have an agenda for keeping free thought down! Philip doesn't even have a single Quenco - it's hard to call this a technology in that sense.
I am a firm believer in exponential evolution. Ray Kurzweil can site many many instances of this and there are few doubters of this fact.I've read his 600-odd-page-tome-in-search-of-an-editor. He kind of glosses over things. Three of his examples of exponential growth is clock speed, transistor count and computer performance. You can only really make an argument in maybe one of those cases.
Love it! You are a great thinker. If not for you and those filled with wonder, the pace would be all together different.
My mind thought of LED's, voice & ocr recognition, dna sequencing, nano material creation, telescopes, disk storage, space flight, 3D printers, and most of all interconnectedness, growing at warp-net speeds. (suffering greatly within several societies around the world however, for change is coming far to quickly for some).
But I'm sure in your mind you might find just maybe one of these that qualifies too because all things can be considered one and the same from some perspectives.
High praise for those filled with wonder for it is a "Wonder Full" time to be alive. Don't you agree?
In conclusion as the "Sci fi" channel suggests, "Question Everything!" and then the process of wonder begins.....
My mind thought of LED's, voice & ocr recognition, dna sequencing, nano material creation, telescopes, disk storage, space flight, 3D printers, and most of all interconnectedness, growing at warp-net speeds. (suffering greatly within several societies around the world however, for change is coming far to quickly for some).You actually need a unit for things to grow at some pace. Most of the things you're talking about are unitless.
You actually need a unit for things to grow at some pace. Most of the things you're talking about are unitless.
Why would you think a unit is required to show progress?Bitch please. We are talking about an exponentially increasing rate with respect to time, not just any improvement.
Bitch please. We are talking about an exponentially increasing rate with respect to time, not just any improvement.
'Question nothing' and just 'believe' seems to be the order of the day on this thread (sensible questions spell 'troll' to many people here!)!No one is saying that anyone has to believe in anything.
There is a not very nice phenomenon going on here, probably present site and internet wide as well. Picking on skeptics is a childish and pointless affair. It is utterly irrelevant if someone either 'believes' in this or not. Like religion. Face it, it's a null hypothesis, and unless Quentron, Rossi, thorium or any other holy grail delivers it is no more than that, in fact less, it is nothing.
Why be rude to innocent people and waste energy calling them names when all they are saying is 'Show me the product'. That is not just a reasonable response, it is the only reasonable response. And if you disagree then I know who the trolls really are. Think about it.
The device does work, it has been proven, it has been tested, and you can even test it for yourself!
I don't get what you are saying. The device does work, it has been proven, it has been tested, and you can even test it for yourself!
But this device does not exist yet. Right?It could sound something like that depending on when you think this became a serious effort to build it.
Shouldn't it sound rather like this:
we want to build a device. The device will work on a certain principle which we tested and proved it works.
It's rather hard for an amateur to create and handle a technology to obtain a nano-scale thick product.
Like I said "ID 10T error".Can you give me an example of a physical quantity exponentially increasing with respect to time without a unit?
You just need to move the letters closer together!
A TROLL is someone who uses 27 posts to repeat himself again....and again....and again....and again....and ad infinity....How about someone who writes posts which are simply vapid namecalling? Like calling someone a troll? Apparently you're allowed a lot of those around here.
I don't get what you are saying. The device does work, it has been proven, it has been tested, and you can even test it for yourself!The idea that someone thinks that what is presented by Philip and to a lesser extent yourself is perhaps less than sufficient is entirely unintelligible to you should be an enormously huge red flag with fireworks that perhaps your belief extends much farther than the evidence can support.
No one is saying that anyone has to believe in anything.
A TROLL is someone who uses 27 posts to repeat himself again....and again....and again....and again....and ad infinity....
Disagree all that you want, but don't badger others who disagree, and don't say the same OLD thing again and never actually contribute anything. A troll wastes good bandwidth and good oxygen.
Merry Christmas ALL (even to all the Trolls!) Jesus is the reason for MY season!
Cheers,
Bruce
To be fair, most of my posts have been questions and statements of fact (read them!!).I wasn't writing concerning you, but if your conscience is bothering you, or if the shoe fits, hey, who am I to disagree.
With regards to repeating things (something you are also guilty of), if anyone (PJH included) were in a position to answer some questions then I wouldn't repeat.
Without scientific proof (Quenco is claimed to exist and is proven 100% - sorry for repeating that!) then all your beliefs are just that.
I wasn't writing concerning you, but if your conscience is bothering you, or if the shoe fits, hey, who am I to disagree.Total and utter lie. You believe that what Philip describes is plausible. You believe that Philip is capable of delivering said plausible idea. I could probably list an easy half dozen beliefs you have other than "Oh only Philip believes"
I have NO belief system about quenco, other than I believe that PH believes in his project.
I am patiently waiting for what ever month PH decides to demo.I'm patiently waiting for some people to realize that Philip has made this decision many times...and each time failed to produce a device.
I have said to you and to the real troll, that to continue to verbally cut PH to shreds with innuendos, mismanagment accusations,Where exactly is the innuendo? Being a bad manager is absolutely correct - Philip himself has agreed with me. Not to mention that it's a logical consequence of believing that Philip isn't a liar and that the Quenco device isn't the problem.
etc., ad nausua is a WASTE OF TIMEAgain nobody elected you (or mrsean2k) to the high-and-mighty-council-of-what-is-and-is-not-a-waste-of-time. Sorry you prefer that belief...why not just try and deal with the diversity that is life? Instead of badgering people into your belief system. I'm perfectly cool with the fact that people here want to hide from some of the logical problems that come from Philip's repeated failures to produce a device. It's like watching a doomsday cult without the funny ending.
It will not hurry nor change the schedule, it adds nothing to the scientific discussionIt adds valuable information as to how seriously we should take Philips claims. This is, as has been mentioned a few times simply a logical consequence.
And I have had enough of it.
So many good member of OU.com have quit because they are sick of the *?*&^ talked about, and that no one builds anything or experiments anymore. (very few, at most)Well perhaps you should be having your little tantrum at Philip? So far he has built nothing. Heck as far as this thread goes all you're doing is talking crap, vapid crap at that not even a logical argument and you sure don't appear to be building anything. So perhaps you can yell at yourself in the mirror for awhile.
And the REAL TRoll can say the same thing 27 times in 27 different ways, with his snide, arrogant remarksWhat same thing am I saying? You keep leaving that out.
And yes SARKEIZEN, I am talking about you.When aren't you? Take a nap, relax.
Total and utter lie. You believe that what Philip describes is plausible. You believe that Philip is capable of delivering said plausible idea. I could probably list an easy half dozen beliefs you have other than "Oh only Philip believes"I'm patiently waiting for some people to realize that Philip has made this decision many times...and each time failed to produce a device. (28 times)
Where exactly is the innuendo? Being a bad manager is absolutely correct - Philip himself has agreed with me. Not to mention that it's a logical consequence of believing that Philip isn't a liar and that the Quenco device isn't the problem. Again nobody elected you (or mrsean2k) to the high-and-mighty-council-of-what-is-and-is-not-a-waste-of-time. Sorry you prefer that belief...why not just try and deal with the diversity that is life? Instead of badgering people into your belief system. I'm perfectly cool with the fact that people here want to hide from some of the logical problems that come from Philip's repeated failures to produce a device. (29 times)
It's like watching a doomsday cult without the funny ending.It adds valuable information as to how seriously we should take Philips claims. This is, as has been mentioned a few times simply a logical consequence.
How about you simply stop creating all the strife? So far you seem to be a primary cause. You know, with your vapid namecalling...just a thought.Well perhaps you should be having your little tantrum at Philip? So far he has built nothing. (30 times)
Heck as far as this thread goes all you're doing is talking crap, vapid crap at that not even a logical argument and you sure don't appear to be building anything. So perhaps you can yell at yourself in the mirror for awhile.What same thing am I saying? (Gee I wonder!? You are one stubborn, thick headed individual. IMHO 30 times now you have repeated yourself.)
You keep leaving that out.When aren't you? Take a nap, relax.
Case and point!ROTFL....so wait, wait, wait. If you say something that implies that Philip hasn't yet selected a date to demo. Nobody is allowed to point out that the truth is something different than that? Ever think that perhaps you're coming up with arbitrary rules as a method of avoiding cognitive dissonance?
Can you give me an example of a physical quantity exponentially increasing with respect to time without a unit?
Sure I can, how about your posts in this channel!Isn't "posts per day" a unit?
Isn't "posts per day" a unit?
E2matrix:
I am going to respond to what you said with some detail just once. Just once in the sense that this response is almost generic because your comments above are almost generic and I have seen similar comments from you many times over applied to all sorts of cases.
Every time a debate comes up you play the paranoia/conspiracy card. It's like you are a blind cheerleader for almost any free energy technology. You never ask technical questions and I am pretty sure that you are not a technical person. You almost never question the motives behind free energy propositions or consider both sides of a claim. It like you 'consume' free energy propositions without ever considering their merits or considering both views of the proposition. And I believe you stated that you have been following the free energy scene for more than 20 years!
You live in a paranoid cloak and dagger world of your own imagination. No matter how ridiculous and how lacking in any credibility the free energy proposition might be, you believe it and are willing to play the MIB card. After a certain point in time it's almost comical. You have seen countless free energy propositions outright fail, or whither on the vine, or be exposed as hoaxes, or be exposed as true cons, and yet you still apparently want to believe the vast majority of them are true and any problems may be associated with "paid disinformation agents" or the "MIB."
In this particular case of Quentron there is simply no substance to Phil and his claim. Have you ever seen any data from him? Any prototypes? Have you ever read any comments from Phil where you get the sense that there is a real, tangible organization behind him?
I don't get any feeling whatsoever that there is any substance to Phil and his claim at all. I just see endless delays. Recently someone made a comment and he got 'hurt' and pulled his website. This was a few weeks before he was supposed to 'launch.' Is that what a real, serious organization is supposed to do, pull their website because of an anonymous comment on a free energy chat board?
Look at the excuse on the web site now:
I don't recall him saying about a labour issue on his last few 'excuse' postings here on OU.
You need to 'let reality in' E2matrix. Sometimes free energy propositions are just bunk, and the MIB are not some magical angel that swoops in an 'saves the day' and explains the reason behind every failed free energy proposition. You need to put your 'critical thinking skills' hat on and start admiring how much better you look with that hat on.
Every time you make a content-less 'MIB' posting you are impugning and denigrating the characters of the people that question the claim. Yet you never try to debate the merits of the claim yourself. You are trying to imply that nearly all people that question free energy claims are on the payroll of mysterious and evil government or industrial cartels. That means that you are trying to imply that people that question free energy claims are evil themselves. This has to stop and you need to wake up from your stupor. Blind believing in free energy propositions and blind believing in 'the grand MIB conspiracy' and constantly impugning the characters of people that debate the issues is surely a mind-numbing stupor.
In plain English, enough of the MIB comments and comments like, "The bigger the potential of a new technology the bigger the propaganda and sabotage attempts become. It's obvious this thread has become rife with them."
It's obvious that you are not thinking. Start thinking and start respecting people with differing opinions than yours and stop trying to portray them as evil people on the payroll of evil organizations. After a certain point in time it's simply ridiculous.
MileHigh
Yes, posts per day could be a unit, so could words per day, so could bytes...Except that you said "posts". Not words or bytes. It's right up there in the post history. "posts" clear as day. Let's look at the quote:
Sure I can, how about your posts in this channel!See...posts.
But then, I did not need any unit to see the result.Actually you did. You needed to decide on "posts". Which you did. See? Come back when you have a coherent thought. I won't hold my breath.
I got a PM too!I think the messages were for e2matrix and we were added to the recipients because we be the skeptics.
Accusing me of having a 'mocking tone' in response to some battery voltage rising under load.......not sure what that's all about?!
Except that you said "posts". Not words or bytes. It's right up there in the post history. "posts" clear as day. Let's look at the quote:See...posts. Actually you did. You needed to decide on "posts". Which you did. See? Come back when you have a coherent thought. I won't hold my breath.
Posts are unit lessYou don't think a "post" is a unit?
You cannot win this game because it's not what I say, It's what I don't say. Now.....Lets play again.I agree that you aren't saying things that make sense and that is what is keeping you from "winning".
Keep on trucking!!
You must be onto something for so much grey noise to be on the thread.Wait. What? So if someone posts something ridiculous and a lot of people say "Hey that's ridiculous!" that's in your mind a VALIDATION of their ridiculous principle?
LOL Impatient peepsWhat is the weird fixation with patience here? It's been said multiple times by multiple people that Philip is missing his own deadlines. Which presumably he can set to whatever he wants. Commenting on this isn't exactly a matter of patience.
will want to be your best friend when you show some demo. I can hear it now, "Oh, Phillip, congratulations! I was just playing about all of that nonsense and drivel I was spewing on yourSo you have vivid fantasies about Philip being right but you have absolutely no beliefs about Quenco....right.
No such thing as a skeptic, just an open mind and scientific method. Use a flow diagram, work each story through and one by one each drops off the line. It's always an issue of beating the null hypothesis until the pile of evidence crosses the line of credibility.
The name calling which has now dominated this thread (admittedly in the face of bugger all solid scientific material) is just the child coming out in everyone probably because there's nothing better to watch on TV so came here to let it all hang out. But when a real story comes in there won't be any skeptics or believers because we'll all know. But not yet.
Thanks e2matrix, I also wonder (not being a prophet of doom but using the principle of intertia, things tend to continue as they are) how long this same argument will continue into 2013 after the nth delay and postponement. I think my relative patience seems to come with being around in the early days and seeing one after another of these evaporate after an average of three years in the media and later the internet. And yes, whoever said it, they are little different from the doomsday cults, the only difference being is as I know people who have personally managed these feats on paper and in reality but do not have the means to enter production (the money required for all but the really cheap units is prohibitive as you'd expect). Therefore I am guessing the technology can exist and am disappointed how badly run the companies and individual manufacturers are in wasting everyone's time announcing things when in fact they are trying to attract funds and nowhere near a working model.
If they were removed somehow from the system before they could taint it then the remainder would be genuine, pre-funded and fit for purpose before they were announced. But as so far these guys follow the previous one's pattern in unison and come out half cocked they actually lose far more potential support although some may get a few grand bunged at them by over-enthusiastic investors. I wish Quentron is different but it's actually an archetypal example so far. There are the standard stages of initial offer, optimism, claims, followed by a period of deadly quiet, followed by a few quiet apologies blaming everyone except themselves, then contrition, new optimism, revelation dates, further delays, apologies, excuses etc, until they quietly vanish into the shadows they appeared from. This one looks like it's in the final stages to me, approaching the final death rattle. I wish I was wrong but looking towards history it's never been any different to now.
You don't think a "post" is a unit?
Yes a post is a unit of......of......well, how about you tell us sarkeizen, because most of us here already know what one of your posts is a unit of.Yawn. When you're cornered you change the subject. How original. Why not just admit you were wrong? or confused...I mean you seemed to have some problem with what I was typing but you couldn't - other than using strawmen - come up with an argument. Now you seem to realize that I was right but you just want to be a jerk about it. Way to seize the moral high-ground there.
Why don't you tell us what you know about 2LOT and Philip's experimental proof. That would be more on subject.Why don't you read what I've already posted? By the by "proof" isn't a very good term since it's rather hugely ambiguous. I prefer talking about evidence.
I've also had private emails with the inventor. Do you know he just came to America in the last couple months to work with some people at Stanford University and to make arrangements with some Silicon valley companies that are able to handle the high level of precision nano scale manufacturing needed to produce these?Actually, if you actually read his posts his alleged work at Stanford started probably around October. This makes for the whole "Philip, despite boasting about his business acumen. Looks like he can't run a lemonade stand." theory. See while not every research relationship is public knowledge the vast majority are. If Philip is doing credible research and they're really so close. Then the university PR machine has been really not doing their job. Philip who has no problem blabbing here and there on his alleged breakthrough would be a pretty crappy manager if he didn't put a bug in the ear of the Uni PR department and get them to do their jobs.
He just left a week or two ago to return home to Australia for the Holidays and will come back here again to move forward soon.He said he had absolutely no doubt he would have viable product by the end of February. Now that date is vapourware and some entirely new story about a "labour problem" appears on the website.
All this at his own expense and I don't personally see anything from the Inventor that sounds like anything bad at all.Why would that be a comfort to anyone with a brain? Seriously "I don't see anything" is only useful if you could guarantee that the majority of problems you could spot. In order to know that you would also have to know the "total number of possible problems". Otherwise...so what? Might as well say claim that your code works because a fisherman can't see a problem with it.
It sounds simply like any project being done the first time takes longer than you expect.Philip has given at least five "for sure" deadlines in the last year alone. Including one a year ago February which was almost exactly a year before his most current deadline for February. His most recent deadline, included the statement that he had no doubt. How many times can something "take longer than you expect" before you're a complete moron if you don't start realizing that your estimates are useless?
So I don't know why people are surprised when he misses a few dates on this.Perhaps because you're something of an idiot? Sure Philip, says he's creating something that nobody has done before but he also claims he's doing it with pretty well-developed technologies.
I know I have more patience than many people but some around here act like a little kid having a tantrum that he didn't get his ice cream fast enough.Wow that was one of the most arrogant statements in this thread...and considering you're up against enormously arrogant people like Bruce_TPU and Philip and lumen that takes some skill. Firstly we're not irritated at the delay. We think the delay means something. Learn to read.
I keep looking at all the new things that come along and prefer to encourage inventors rather than stifle them with a lot of negative statements...but without any limits at all? Should we continue encouraging every person all the time in every endevour? Isn't that a bit stupid?
So I still have a hard time understanding why it is people want to bash him every way to Sunday unless they have some agenda.So again we are at the "hard time understanding" - same problem. It's a stupid way to look at a problem.
I began to understand how the very nature of our current 'science' seems to make new invention or discovery of anything a nearly impossible nightmarish maze of BS intent on stifling anything that might challenge a major or even minor established 'theory'.Example please.
So now I do all I can to encourage anything that has not been solidly proven falseSo what is required for "solidly proven false"?
I just had another theory spring to mind as to why some are so impatientExcept you're theory about impatience is wrong.
In a year Intel is making motherboards and CPU's with an internal power supply which never needs to be plugged into an outside energy source - NEVER. It even provides power for the hard drives - a self running computer that never needs to be plugged in - not even for charging. What will happen to Intel stock? ;)So I'm pointing out some logical consequences of Philips actions (if you want to assume that Quenco works and Philip is not lying) and that means I have to be making some money off some invisible list of licencees?
Yawn. When you're cornered you change the subject. How original. Why not just admit you were wrong? or confused...I mean you seemed to have some problem with what I was typing but you couldn't - other than using strawmen - come up with an argument. Now you seem to realize that I was right but you just want to be a jerk about it. Way to seize the moral high-ground there.Why don't you read what I've already posted? By the by "proof" isn't a very good term since it's rather hugely ambiguous. I prefer talking about evidence.
I have seen you talk nothing of the scientific concepts,That's nice but also irrelevant. See the subject of the sentence you are responding to here was, in case you didn't notice "what *I* wrote". But here you are talking about what you've seen of my writings. Which simply isn't relevant. Now if you read everything I've posted it would be different but you haven't or at least not with very much attention to detail.
Like your recent post, nothing new, nothing intellectual, nothing mathematical, nothing scientific, only garbage talk of other people.You mean the post where I'm responding to someone who doesn't believe a post is a unit of measure? IIRC the person who I was responding to has done very little other than make silly little backbiting comments. Is that the kind of behavior you're against? You have a funny way of showing it. :)
So when you say you "prefer to talk about evidence" then why don't you?So when you read a sentence do you actually take a moment to understand it's context or do you just dive in and start thinking up silly ways to interpret it? You've misunderstood my usage of "prefer" I'm saying that the term "proof" and "prove" which you are in love with are too vague for useful conversation. You should talk about "evidence" instead of "proof".
It's obvious you know nothing about Philips work and stick only to calling him a failure.If you read, and I get that perhaps that wasn't emphasized in your education as much as it should have for the purposes of conversing with me you'll see that I'm talking about Philip's failure to deliver on his promises. He promised multiple times to have working product and each time he makes some excuse and moves the goalposts. Regardless of how much you like virtually felating Philip this is a pretty normal usage of the term - failure. Philip has failed to deliver 3-5 times this year (more depending on how you count).
Lets see if you can write a post about Philip's work, and not about Philip.Sorry but the term "work", to me anyway implies something that Philip has actually *done*. While it's certainly plausible that he has destroyed some tubes and it's possible he's spending some of his cash renting out space from Stanford (hope he got the Industry Affiliate rate). There is little work to be shown.
It looks like all your contributions to this channel are just dribble about other people. Do you need to make others look bad for you to look better because you have no self esteem?It's worth pointing out how your post here is a good example of what you're complaining about. For most of it you're just making empty criticism of me. You've become that which you decry... congratulations?!
The principals involved in Philip's quenco are obviously so far above you that you can resort to only attacks to Philip and not his work theory.From what I've seen what Philip has posted on the Quenco site is pretty much fluff. He begs the important question about how 2LOT is violated. You even agreed on that point if you recall. There's little to argue with there because there's little there.
So we all feel bad for you, but stamping your feet and pointing at others won't make anything better.No you're probably lying here. You don't feel sorry for me, you're angry at me. Your passive-aggressive tantrum is only slightly less obvious than renting out a billboard.
Ok....whatever you say. No tech, your no value to me. I can find anyone off the street to talk about other people.
If you talk of concepts or ideas or theory, we talk to high class people.
If you talk of money and finances and investments, we talk to middle class.
People who talk about other people, are trying to pull themselves up or drag others down. (bottom feeders either way)
Ok....whatever you say. No tech, your no value to me.I suspect that this is just some face-saving way to excuse yourself from the discussion. Again if you READ MY POSTS you'll see that I do discuss more than people but people like YOU don't want to talk about those things. Was my metaphor (taken unabashedly from V for Vendetta) about looking in the mirror too difficult?
If you talk of concepts or ideas or theory, we talk to high class people.Drastic oversimplifications are handy aren't they? With them you don't need to actually intellectually engage on an issue. You can just look at a list of a few simple rules and then POP your little brain need no longer worry about nagging questions.
If you talk of money and finances and investments, we talk to middle class.
People who talk about other people, are trying to pull themselves up or drag others down. (bottom feeders either way)
He has been asking questions throughout, it was only (really) you who decided to start an argument!
I gave up asking questions when it was clear that nobody could really answer them - sarkaizen has some good questions, why not 'save face' and respond with answers?!
I guess even if the major questions cannot be answered (and they haven't been) then at least you are keeping this thread at the top of the list!!
Hi Lumen,
Trying to talk to Sarkeizen is like spitting in the wind. It is best to ignore. He is overly impressed with himself and will not listen. I have stopped reading his posts. Let's all just move the conversation without him, and if he responds, ignore said response.
Cheers,
Bruce
Dude, I've made two points. One Philip agrees with - that he sucks at management - which of course should imply something about his next deadline and the other he's been unwilling or unable to formulate an answer to - which was that he's violating information theory (and probably computational complexity theory)Why not just talk about all of the shortcomings of Philip and his hypothetical device? Unless you have an agenda for keeping free thought down! Philip doesn't even have a single Quenco - it's hard to call this a technology in that sense.
OK, Rewind:
Do you see any real questions in there?
Ok, a simple one which I can't get my head around too well (although the answer could be quite simple)!:
How does I2R apply to quenco as a lossy system?
For example, with the 1cm^3, how does the quenco not go into thermal runaway if its powered by heat?
And if its powered by heat but it cools as it runs - where is the break even point where it fails to operate?!
It's looking more like a messed-up peltier to me with no practical method of maintaining a differential across it (cheaply and space efficiently).
As I implied, maybe I am missing something, if you can let me know the answers that would be awesome.
Ok, a simple one which I can't get my head around too well (although the answer could be quite simple)!:
How does I2R apply to quenco as a lossy system?
For example, with the 1cm^3, how does the quenco not go into thermal runaway if its powered by heat?
And if its powered by heat but it cools as it runs - where is the break even point where it fails to operate?!
It's looking more like a messed-up peltier to me with no practical method of maintaining a differential across it (cheaply and space efficiently).
As I implied, maybe I am missing something, if you can let me know the answers that would be awesome.
I thought the same thing, with low voltage output and high current, there is going to be a lot of heat that in turn would produce more current.
Additional layers to increase the voltage would help solve much of the local heating but when viewed correctly, there is no real problem.
Suppose you have a low voltage quenco between two heat sinks and only a heavy copper wire shorting the circuit.
The ambient heat will provide electron flow which in turn produces heat in the wire and in the heat sink. This heat originally was consumed from the environment inside the box and serves to help cool the wire and heat sink which reduces the output. However nothing actually changed since the heat produced is indeed the same heat that was consumed.
The process in this case may trap some of the initial heat from the environment inside the box in a loop within the heat sinks and wire, but when disconnected the heat would again balance out to starting conditions.
If you had two boxes, one with the quenco and heatsink and the other with the shorting wire, then the heat form the quenco would accumulate in the other box and the quenco box would become colder until infinity, except the process would become slower and slower as it cools.
The reason is that eventually in the colder environment the random encounters between electrons will less often occur that will energize any single electron with enough energy to tunnel the barrier. This is where a thinner barrier will allow the device to operate to a lower temperature, but will also lower the working voltage of each layer.
Of course, Theory is the word at this time.
I was thinking more about the interface between the shorting wire and the quenco itself being a high (ish) resistance...and local to the quenco. What you said makes sense but I will need to digest the info a bit more!
I haven't done the math but for the cubic cm it looks like there will be many many thousands of watts dissipated from the junction - that's not ideal.
Cracking a few nm of material between two lumps of metal will become quite easy I think, once the differential between the two sides increases.
Let me digest a bit more.
Trying to talk to Sarkeizen is like spitting in the wind. It is best to ignore. He is overly impressed with himself and will not listen.Bruce....seriously? When have you offered anything but "You must act like X around Philip" or "You are a troll and you better stop talking". If you want people to listen to you. You actually need to talk about something. Just telling people how they should talk seems to get you ignored by just about everyone other than me...and now you're begging for attention from others.
I have stopped reading his posts. Let's all just move the conversation without him, and if he responds, ignore said response.
Yes, you are correct! It always takes two to argue.Arguing is actually pretty useful. If you could only be less vapid about it.
With that I must say : Sarkeizen my friend, all we do is argue anymore, So I'm leaving you.
:)
OK, Rewind:Yeah because looking at a post which just references a couple of things I talked about earlier is the best way to evaluate the arguments you previously ignored...and then went on to argue about other things - like how posts are not a unit. :)
Do you see any real questions in there?
There is no temperature differential between the two sides. The quenco converts from an isothermal environment.
I do think because the electrons move from one side to the other that it will cause it's own differential and start to cool one side then loose efficiency.
The heat sinks from each side would need to be thermally connected and electrically isolated to maintain the same temperature on each side of the chip as close as possible.
I did some heat modeling on this and if you try to pull 5000W across 1 square centimeter area, there is a large temperature difference even in a solid copper heatsink.
Copper is just not conductive enough to supply ambient temperatures without the chip being 30F to 50F cooler even when trapped in solid copper blocks.
If the electrical junction did induce heat, at least the chip would be running in a more efficient temperature range.
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?
I think that is the most stupid pointless question you have asked so far, and you do set an amazingly high standard in that respect.Because there couldn't possibly be anything about this subject that you don't understand. Right?
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
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?
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?
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 could be sure of there being no algo possible then it would stand to reason that the device would not be possible.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?"
I ain't sure if there is an algo for Quenco as a 'system' but there are algo's for bits of it.
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".
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".
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 (http://www.quentron.com)
Back to why I logged on
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL
Phil H
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.
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.
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)
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.
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 FebruaryThis 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;"
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.
sceptics who are more interested in attacking me than doing the experiment or debating the scienceOk 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.
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 (http://www.quentron.com)
Back to why I logged on
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL
Phil H
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.
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)
"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.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;"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. 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.
No, I don't think it does...Even if it works as described by Philip?
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:
http://www.nrglab.asia/auctions.html (http://www.nrglab.asia/auctions.html)
Happy new year, and may it be the year free energy becomes widely spread.
Interesting device, but it almost seems that it could be using a radioactive isotope. I can't find additional info on it's operation.I think it's more interesting that your first assumption is that it exists and works as described almost seems like you think writing things on web pages makes things happen.
I think it's more interesting that your first assumption is that it exists and works as described almost seems like you think writing things on web pages makes things happen.I'm sorry, was I talking to you?
I'm sorry, was I talking to you?Dude for all I know you're talking to the voices in your head. However you are posting in a public forum. So it's reasonable to expect input from other people. For example it was not unreasonable to believe that someone might jump into the discussion I was having about Kurzwiel's work. It was unreasonable for that person to declare that a post is not a unit though. :)
If I was, I would say that your remark is again about the person and not any concept or idea.Actually it was about a concept or the idea that your first assumption appears to be that the device exists and is working even though you admit there is little information about it. Which is interesting. It kind of re-enforces the idea or concept that perhaps you are kind of uncritical or gullible - those are ideas and concepts too.
Additionally, my remark was about another device shown in the link and not the quenco.Yes, I never thought otherwise.
So I really don't understand what you are talking aboutPerhaps next time I should put it on a web site with some lame text about auctioning off some rights to my new technology called - having useful standards for deciding what is credible and what isn't.
...... do you?Yeah, I do. I've said this more than once now - which breaks the "Rule of Bruce" (to which Bruce is apparently excepted - just like your rules about talking about people. Funny that.) - that reading a website with very little information about some alleged device seems to allow you to assume that the device exists (and that the technology behind it is real to some extent). I think that says you're kind of gullible at least in some specific respect.
Bla..bla...bla..., I hear a noise! It sounds like a broken record.Just put your fingers in your ears and join Bruce_TPU in the corner saying "la la la" as loud as you can. Because that has to be the best way to learn something new.
I'll just close the door.
Just put your fingers in your ears and join Bruce_TPU in the corner saying "la la la" as loud as you can. Because that has to be the best way to learn something new.
P.S. You're talking about people again...just in case that's also wrong for you. I realize that like Bruce_TPU your rules might only apply to everyone else. :)
I am a Troll!You are not interested in learning ANYTHING, so please stop your lies. Your purpose has ONLY been to demean Philip, who has done NOTHING to you. You don't like what he writes or stands for, PLEASE do us ALL a favor, and GO AWAY!
I am a Troll!Didn't the Myan prophecy come for you? "December 21st all trolls and their trolling ways shall be ended!" ahahahaha
What did I tell you about leaving my name out of your troll posts?// Eh??What did I tell you about having delusions of authority?
You are not interested in learning ANYTHING,...and yet there is little reason to believe that. I've asked some simple and straightforward questions which you and lumen and Philip have tried pretty hard to ignore. However you all seem to like attacking me on the loopiest of premises. Like the Bruce_TPU rule on how many times you're allowed to talk about something (even if someone like Bruce_TPU keeps bringing it up) or the lumen rule on "talking about people".
so please stop your lies.Didn't you say you stopped reading my posts? Maybe you should focus on that ocularly mounted log before you start worrying about any motes.
Your purpose has ONLY been to demean PhilipAgain, almost no evidence to suggest that is my only purpose. For example, there's far more evidence to suggest that I mean to discredit him...or perhaps more accurately point out how he has discredited himself in a particular respect or just that I find the huge amount of willful ignorance around here interesting...or even that there are some problem with his ideas.
who has done NOTHING to you.Man you really love making statements that you have like zero evidence for. How could you possibly know that Philip hasn't committed some terrible crime against me? Is he perfect? Has he never harmed another human? Is he the Messiah? How do you know he didn't kill my favorite pet fly, spider and/or snake?
You don't like what he writes or stands forSo aren't you saying here that you think it's wrong to oppose Philip on principle - e.g I don't like what he's saying because it's pretty much fluff bordering on anti-science? You also appear to think that it's wrong to oppose him because of the kind of person he is - e.g. As a manager he sucks worm dung.
PLEASE do us ALL a favorGiven that you've pretty much vassilated between "moron" and "ass" (occasionally exhibiting an exquisite combination of the two) since your first post to me. I wonder just what makes you think I'd consider doing you a favor?
Didn't the Myan prophecy come for you? "December 21st all trolls and their trolling ways shall be ended!" ahahahaha...and that ladies and gentlemen is why if you drink...please don't post. Because you're never as funny as you think you are.
Darn freakin' Myans! I guess that is what happens when you put your trust in a bunch of human sacrificing astronomers, eh? ahahaha
. Because you're never as funny as you think you are.No, you are right, sometimes FUNNIER then we think we are.
No, you are right, sometimes FUNNIER then we think we are.A lot of drunks think that too. :)
Lighten up sarkey!From someone who doesn't allow his name to be used my posts...that's more than a little ironic.
The first time I have ever seen that happen with 58 posts that combined, say absolutely nothing.Yawn, if you ask a specific question I'm sure I can help you understand what I'm talking about. As it stands, it seems like it's going over your head.
I wonder if the loud mouthed rude sceptics would care to donate to charity when they are proved to be........ just loud mouthed rude sceptics.This might be tempting if it were not for the other bets you weaseled out of. If you had not pointed me to that moletrap place. I'd never have known about them. Bets, as far as I can tell you would have lost many times over if you had not weaseled out. How about you pay out those people first? You know, out of a sense of fair play.
when they are proved to be........ just loud mouthed rude skeptics.
SUCCESSFUL REPLICATIONS OF THE SEBITHENCO VALVE EXPERIMENT
There have been a number of recent offers to carry out the Sebithenco experiment (the valve challenge). As of January 1 2013 my original experiments (or parts thereof) have been repeated 4 times by others, 3 of whom are respected scientists. With expressed intent of 3 other people suitably qualified that number may soon increase to 7. Whilst one experiment that was done was not considered reliable (in scientific terms) the others were
In 1873, Frederick Guthrie discovered the basic principle of operation of thermionic diodes.[3] Guthrie discovered that a positively charged electroscope could be discharged by bringing a grounded piece of white-hot metal close to it (but not actually touching it). The same did not apply to a negatively charged electroscope, indicating that the current flow was only possible in one direction.
Thomas Edison independently rediscovered the principle on February 13, 1880. At the time, Edison was investigating why the filaments of his carbon-filament light bulbs nearly always burned out at the positive-connected end. He had a special bulb made with a metal plate sealed into the glass envelope. Using this device, he confirmed that an invisible current flowed from the glowing filament through the vacuum to the metal plate, but only when the plate was connected to the positive supply.
The Fleming valve, also called the Fleming oscillation valve, was a thermionic valve diode (called a "vacuum tube" in the USA) invented by John Ambrose Fleming and used in the earliest days of radio communication. As the first vacuum tube, the IEEE has described it as "one of the most important developments in the history of electronics",[1] and it is on the List of IEEE Milestones for electrical engineering.
The Fleming valve was the first practical application of the "Edison effect" (thermionic emission) discovered in 1883 by Thomas Edison shortly after his invention of the incandescent light bulb, that is, the emission of electrons by a lamp's heated filament to a nearby metal plate. Edison was granted a patent for this device as part of an electrical indicator in 1884, but did not hit upon any practical use.
Thermionic emission is the heat-induced flow of charge carriers from a surface or over a potential-energy barrier. This occurs because the thermal energy given to the carrier overcomes the binding potential, also known as work function of the metal. The charge carriers can be electrons or ions, and in older literature are sometimes referred to as "thermions".
The classical example of thermionic emission is the emission of electrons from a hot cathode, into a vacuum (also known as the Edison effect) in a vacuum tube.
This might be tempting if it were not for the other bets you weaseled out of. If you had not pointed me to that moletrap place. I'd never have known about them. Bets, as far as I can tell you would have lost many times over if you had not weaseled out. How about you pay out those people first? You know, out of a sense of fair play.
I'll take secret option c) - Tell you to get over yourself. The high-and-mighty attitude might work on the local yokels but I see more puffed chests daily than a penguin rancher. The only thing distinctive about yours is that the pontifications aren't just silly they're boring.
Sarkeizen you have crossed a line and libelled me, you post some evidence of your statement or withdraw it with an apology.
10 remaining uncommitted licenses have been up priced to US$2 Billion each.
set out to be rude to every person on this site that has engaged himAlso this seems unfair. "Responded in kind to ever rude,arrogant posting of people like Bruce_TPU, lumen, Philip" might be more appropriate.
To the moderator/administrator,
Sarkeizen has maliciously libelled me and set out to be rude to every person on this site that has engaged him, I would like his details emailed to me and I believe he should be banned.
I think you have libelled each other a number of times if you both wanted to keep score!I realize that there was much Bruce_TPU, lumen and Philip noise there for a bit but have you decided if what Philip describes is a maxwell's demon device? If it is, then there are proofs about what can and can not be built. The only point of contention that Philip has mentioned so far is that he doesn't appear to believe that there's a entropic cost to writing/erasing data (even though there is in just about every existing computer system). Do you follow me so far?
I suspect that if the forum gave people's details out 'willy nilly' it would be slightly more serious :)
I realize that there was much Bruce_TPU, lumen and Philip noise there for a bit but have you decided if what Philip describes is a maxwell's demon device? If it is, then there are proofs about what can and can not be built. The only point of contention that Philip has mentioned so far is that he doesn't appear to believe that there's a entropic cost to writing/erasing data (even though there is in just about every existing computer system). Do you follow me so far?
Also here's another question for everyone. So a bunch of you seem to think that Philip is right. Putting that aside for the moment, I also detect that if Philip is right you will think all the skeptics *should* have believed him. I'd like to know if that's true, at what point you think it's true and why?
people forget to throw entropy into the mix. When its thrown in, things fall apart and life savings are gone!Fair enough. So my next step was to give Philip the benefit of the doubt. So assume that perhaps there is some way to "decide" without memory or without erasing memory. From there you might want to look at some of the work in information theory that correlates physical entropy with informational entropy - it's exceptionally interesting in and of itself - one of the theorems demonstrates that there is a correlation between stored information and energy (or entropy). That a "bit" of information is "worth" a certain amount of energy.
Fair enough. So my next step was to give Philip the benefit of the doubt. So assume that perhaps there is some way to "decide" without memory or without erasing memory. From there you might want to look at some of the work in information theory that correlates physical entropy with informational entropy - it's exceptionally interesting in and of itself - one of the theorems demonstrates that there is a correlation between stored information and energy (or entropy). That a "bit" of information is "worth" a certain amount of energy.
You don't need to understand it all but just the (somewhat oversimplified) idea that any Maxwell's Demon machine is essentially a small computing device. It takes an input, there's a decision and there's an action (to sort or not to sort) in Szilard, Brillouin and Landauer's models they also have "memory" but Philip's doesn't (or at least doesn't in the way an IT person would recognize it) and I'm getting to the problem with that. If you follow me so far, let me know and I'll give you the next piece.
Anyone like Bruce_TPU (or Philip who's pretty tight lipped about information theory - which makes me think it's a few light years outside his field) who thinks I'm saying "nothing" - might want to come forward at this point and explain what I'm getting at here and why it's false because you can't really make your statement with confidence unless you know that. If you can't then it makes me think you're all blowing smoke.
So let's read this slowly, "Information THEORY".
Why, that sounds like absolute proof of something right there!
Ok, everyone ready....... here it comes!
... So I am not surprised at all and I believe the physics behind the experiment can all be explained by someone that is much more qualified than me.
...
MileHigh
So let's read this slowly, "Information THEORY".I think I mentioned earlier about how "proof" is a poor term and I think lumen has illustrated this problem well with his confusion over the use of "theory".
Why, that sounds like absolute proof of something right there!
The theory is already here:I skimmed D’Abramo's work from the link in the Quenco page. The only thing I'd say is that he's starting much "lower down the stack" than I am which means he's making many more assumptions. For example he wants to challenge the second law but also invokes other physical laws to do so. While I'm not claiming that any one of these is necessarily flawed. It does make one wonder that outside of D'Abramo's well-known desire to challenge the second-law why couldn't you explain the same paradox by challenging one of the other laws.
According Information Theory, it should be possible to harvest almost infinite amounts of energy from the overunity board caused by trolling, stupidity and ignorance.
Science is a tool - not an end in itself.
Sarkaizen is contributing to the discussion about whether quenco is possible or not.
What's your feelings about information theory and how it applies (or doesn't) to quenco? How about entropy - does quenco reduce it?
Apparently entropy is reducing as the universe expands (?) - I don't think this needs to be considered mind you!
but the first line of ANY of his replies is always condescending to try to claim some type of high ground (at least in his mind).Let's see if this is true...
I skimmed D’Abramo's work from the link in the Quenco page. The only thing I'd say is that he's starting much "lower down the stack" than I am which means he's making many more assumptions.How is that being condescending? Is that not true? Did you read D'Abramo's paper?
I think I mentioned earlier about how "proof" is a poor term and I think lumen has illustrated this problem well with his confusion over the use of "theory".Again how is this condescending? Didn't you capitalize "THEORY" to imply that information theory was something less than "absolute proof"?
Fair enough. So my next step was to give Philip the benefit of the doubt.This is condescending? How?
I realize that there was much Bruce_TPU, lumen and Philip noise there for a bit but have you decided if what Philip describes is a maxwell's demon device?This again seems pretty much fact.
Which is why I don't reply.Are you sure you're not making up another rule like "Nobody can talk about people" (which you're breaking right now) to rationalize not participating?
When they can't refute you, Sarkeizen, they attack you personally. It happens all the time -- trash the skeptics personally -- and the more severe the personal attacks against you, the more you know you are right on the mark. If they had real cogent arguments against your position they would present them. But they do not..... so all they can do to try to save face is to insult you, malign you, question your upbringing (insulting your family), threaten you, and so on, hoping you will give up in disgust and go away.Ha! This from the king of fraud and lies! How IS that OCAL magnet motor working out, Al?
Keep up the good work.
But if somebody invests serious amount of time with the only theoretical approach of "can´t" work - it gets interesting.I'm not sure if you're talking about me. Assuming you are I'd say that what I'm talking about doesn't take much time. All I do,is what I expect anyone to do. Find things that are impossible and see how they limit our ideas. If you're lucky you can eliminate your theory altogether. Why do I say "lucky"? because eliminating a theory means you've learned something.
Why does such brilliant minds waste their time with doubting somebody elses work ?
Why do such brilliant minds start to insult each other personally ?...or make ridiculous legal threats
In the end I prefer people doing something.For me anyway. Thinking is "doing something" and trying hard as possible to disconfirm a theory from as many possible is always the best possible thing you can do. This is nothing new. In fact it's Feynmans first principle: "you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."
If they had real cogent arguments against your position they would present them.Yeah, the sad fact is that I'm smart enough to realize that just because a few dopes (Philip included) can't refute my argument doesn't mean I'm right but the fact they are so insecure (or whatever) means that I'm effectively talking to myself most of the time.
Keep up the good work.Thanks TK.
And he (Sarkey) can't "give up" because he hasn't and won't BUILD anything! Armchair trolls.Hush. The adults are talking.
You've made that accusation before, Bruce TPU, and just as before, you are unable to support your accusation with facts or references. You cannot, for instance, produce one single citation where the builder of the device you mention ever claimed that it was overunity in any way.Ha! You produced a VIDEO showing the OCAL magnet motor "working", and even gave the plans to "replicate" it, dimensions, magnet strength, etc. You "LED" others to believe it was so by your trickery on the video. So, no, your "MOUTH" may have not uttered the words "overunity", you know EXACTLY what you did, as do ALL the OU forums. So don't even play that....
So you have proven my point, yet again. When you can't refute the arguments of skeptics, or understand what they are doing, you proceed to insult and make personal attacks without foundation or support, and the more you attack us the more we know that we are righteous in our skepticism.
Hush. The adults are talking.Really? Where??
Really? Where??I'll give you a hint. We're not meeting at your house.
Bruce you can either contribute to the discussion - which means knowing something about mathematics and physics or you can just continue to beg for attention. I'm guessing you'll do the later.
You are a broken record that goes round and round. You too have lost all credability, no one is interested in what you have to say.
I look at quenco more as a prisim than a Maxwell demon. The electrons seperate themselves much as the photons seperate themselves by wavelength (level of energy).So maybe you can tell me how information theory applies to a prisim sorting photons and decoding by wavelength without applied energy.First explain why you think what you describe is different. You could just as easily call classical "pressure demon" style devices(e.g. Smoluchowski's device) a prism as it sorts molecules by energy.
First explain why you think what you describe is different. You could just as easily call classical "pressure demon" style devices(e.g. Smoluchowski's device) a prism as it sorts molecules by energy.Because the prisim sorts every individual photon by it's independent wavelength regardless of how even the mixture, unlike Smoluchowski's device that sorts by pools of molecules and depends on a temperature gradient to operate.
Generally speaking Maxwell Demon devices are anything which can alter entropy in an isothermal environment.
Because the prisim sorts every individual photon by it's independent wavelength regardless of how even the mixture, unlike Smoluchowski's device that sorts by pools of molecules and depends on a temperature gradient to operate.So let's straighen some things out here. The question is "Is a quenco a Maxwell's Demon device?" - that is does it take an isothermal environment and alter it's entropy. You said "No, it's like a prism" - in the sense that it sorts photons by their energy level. So do just about all proposed Maxwell's Demon devices. Smoluchowski's device sorts (even in an isothermal environment) however it can't do so and reduce entropy. Now you appear to want to look at some other aspect of a prism which doesn't have to do with an isothermal environment or entropy. If somehow your underlying argument is still "this is what a quenco is like" then it's unclear in what respect you are talking about. In what way is the quenco "like a prisim" other than it sorts by energy state and in what way is that relevant to answering whether it takes an isothermal environment and shifts it's entropy.
I suppose the prisim is a case of "special information theory"So far you haven't shown how a prism affects thermal entropy.
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?"
If Quenco were to work in the way that I understand it to work, then yes, it "reduces entropy." But, not in an isothermal environment as the average temperature of the system goes down.Ok there's two different scenarios that are getting conflated here (probably by me as much as anyone else :) )
Is this not how Quenco is being "advertised?" Is this not a reduction of entropy?I think so. So MD machines have been looked at in a number of ways. One proof was done which stated (loosely) that whatever mechanism is doing the sorting has to be making a decision, in order to make a decision information must be, at least temporarily stored. Then at some point erased. Another proof showed that erasing data has an entropic cost.
Ok there's two different scenarios that are getting conflated here (probably by me as much as anyone else :) )
So there's the idea that a MD machine can take an isothermal environment and reduce it's entropy (by sorting). So perhaps it might be clearly to say that an MD machine reduces entropy FROM an isothermal environment.
Another scenario would be in an experiment where the temperature is kept at a constant temperature (sometimes referred to as an isothermal "bath") an MD device should keep being able to do work. Which is why Philip and the Quencoites destroy pentodes in toaster ovens.I think so. So MD machines have been looked at in a number of ways. One proof was done which stated (loosely) that whatever mechanism is doing the sorting has to be making a decision, in order to make a decision information must be, at least temporarily stored. Then at some point erased. Another proof showed that erasing data has an entropic cost.
I used the prisim only to indicate that not all MD's are locked under information theory.Oh, that's what you're getting at. As far as I knew you were talking about a MD which was "like" a prism is some way. The only aspect that you appear to mention was sorting by energy level which is done by number of proposed MD's.
Oh, that's what you're getting at. As far as I knew you were talking about a MD which was "like" a prism is some way. The only aspect that you appear to mention was sorting by energy level which is done by number of proposed MD's.
If you want to use a prism in that way. You first need to prove (in the mathematical sense) that it *is* an MD. Which it isn't but feel free to try.
While you're at it, why don't you build a machine that can deterministically tell you if an arbitrary computer program will end. :)
It may be possible to prove a prisim as a MD but the point is that sorting is performed at little or no cost and yet there is information produced.If a prism is NOT an MD then it's irrelevant to what information theory says about MD's. If you would like to *construct* an MD using a prisim then please explain exactly what it is you are constructing.
Suppose you take a large number of arbitrary computer programs (by this I'm thinking of just a pile of random binary numbers) and run them with the computer. It would seem that some would end very fast and others would take longer and longer and some would never end from internal loops. Just logging that information would let you plot a curve and estimate the probability of a particular program ending on that CPU.So you fail solving the problem in a number of ways there. One particular glaring way is that you "log the information" for programs that don't end. Exactly how are you determining that the program doesn't end so that you can log it's information so you can plot your curve? You've essentially embedded the same problem into your solution. I hope this isn't standard engineering practice.
If a prism is NOT an MD then it's irrelevant to what information theory says about MD's. If you would like to *construct* an MD using a prisim then please explain exactly what it is you are constructing.
Sorry for not responding to your other comments they were way too vague.So you fail solving the problem in a number of ways there. One particular glaring way is that you "log the information" for programs that don't end. Exactly how are you determining that the program doesn't end so that you can log it's information so you can plot your curve? You've essentially embedded the same problem into your solution. I hope this isn't standard engineering practice.
Once you determine the data including those that did not end in the selected timeWhat selected time? You're going to pick an arbitrary time and group all programs which take longer than say 5s to run will take an infinite amount of time? Are you saying that you don't see how that fails to solve the stated problem?
then a curve could be plotted the would show the probability of those that did not end and yet might in more time.A curve of what vs. what? Run time vs. program length in instructions? Let me guess, you can't see the problem there either.
You spend a lot of time trying to find a point that makes the solution not feasable.5 seconds to point out what every year 1 CS student would know?
Most of the time I would suspect the original concept is missing most of the detailIt wasn't a lack of detail in the problem definition that made your solution wrong (this is a well known undecidable problem). It was simple poor planning. You suggested a solution which included the same problem you were trying to solve. This would seem like something a high-schooler would know not to do. That someone who spent 30 years writing code and Engineering misses that is kind of underwhelming.
I have contacted my Solicitor to meet with him on monday to file an action.I have contacted your local Pizza Hut. They are prepared to assuage your disappointments calorically.
It is my claim that the above device will unequivocally violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT).
Immersed in a single reservoir of heat it will produce a continuous electrical output exceeding 1 Watt.
I thought I read somewhere on this thread or perhaps on the Quentron website that the Sebithenco Device puts out something like 1/2 volt open circuit and has a closed circuit current measured in microAmps. That would be something like microWatts. Now I'm reading "exceeding 1 Watt." Is this accurate? At one watt, it should be pretty easy to eliminate other possible sources of the power.The whole thing is written kind of carelessly.
The whole thing is written kind of carelessly.
Absolutely. But at 1 watt, he has my attention! I mean this is supposedly an experiment that he actually performed. Even if it was fairly sloppy, it should be pretty hard to get 1 watt. (I guess it just depends on exactly how sloppy it was.) But, again, wasn't he talking microWatts earlier???IIRC he said "750 mV" or "nearly a volt" - I somehow doubt he was getting a full Amp out of the device.
Immersed in a single reservoir of heat it will produce a continuous electrical output exceeding 1 Watt.
Al, Tin, whatever you want to call yourself, you are the biggest loser!
I read between the lines here and at moletrap that you are an aging and failed drunk.
What I understand is that you have no money, no home of your own, and no woman in your life.
You do nothing other than masturbate your ego and dream of things you once were capable of.
You probably have some other issues to deal, focus on those and leave me out of your vitriol.
I just got this PM from PJH. I wonder what his "solicitors" will say about this.
This is a clear libel. Aging and failed drunk, etc.
Hardcastle, you cannot support your contentions with evidence. PROVE THAT I AM A "DRUNK" or apologise and retract this statement immediately.
Prove that I "do nothing other than masturbate your ego and dream of things you once were capable of". You cannot. You cannot support any of your other contentions about me with facts. I am 58 years old, for example. Is that "aging"? Perhaps I could call you "immature and callow youth". Does that say anything about your ideas or work?
I have a good mind to call up some of my friends in Palo Alto to check up on your "project" at Stanford.
ETA: Yes, there are things I've done that I am no longer capable of. Coronary heart disease and triple bypass surgery does tend to slow one down a bit; I no longer give aerobatic demonstrations or flight instruction in gliders, for example. However, I am still perfectly capable of refuting your nonsense.
Well said :)I think Philip has kind of showed his hand as "not a very nice person". He appears to be willing to file against Overunity a site that allows him to advertise his unworkable designs for free, in order to get information that really wouldn't help him anyway. I get the impression that he barely tolerates his supporters. Which makes Bruce_TPU's constant series of neck massages even more sad.
I think PJH is getting into the US litigious way of life a little too heavily....or doesn't understand basic law at least!!
I think Philip has kind of showed his hand as "not a very nice person".HA! The Pot calling the Kettle Black.
HA! The Pot calling the Kettle Black.I just mean something different than you do. I may be perceived by some as acerbic. Philip seems more like someone who has a particular goal and really little in the way of qualms as to how it is achieved. To wit: He, at least in his huffing and puffing speechifying would bring the law against Overunity in order to get what measly data they have about me.
You keep bringin in my name, when asked not tooYou keep acting like someone who thinks they deserve respect.
You have the personality of a stalker, by the way.Because in the world of Bruce_TPU complex and complete personality analysis can be done through a few exchanges on the internet. Psychologists the world over thank you for simplifying their complex tasks.
I hope Philip does indeed sue your tail off.
You can't just argue (again and again and again) against something that you want so much to not be so (paid schill?)Isn't calling someone a "paid schill" defamation?
but you have defamed Philip as a person time and time again.If you mean that Philip is a bad manager. That has been explained as a logical consequence of believing in the Quenco technlogy and the reports of Philip. If we are to believe your accounting this has been explained to you 59 times without you grasping it. Not something I'd boast about personally.
Well I built something that I doubt you will ever be able to: A cogent argument.
Build something troll. Oh, forgot, trolls don't build they only armchair critisize other who dare to dream.
If he did, you would alread be banned from this thread, like MH was banned from the friction heater thread for harrassing Gabriel.
...can I ask you what your test setup will consist of and how you will make your measurements? I have no idea how much thought that you have put into this but sharing your thoughts might help. I know from experience that there are many pitfalls that experimenters can fall into when it comes to making serious electrical and thermal measurements. It's not necessarily easy at all, and sometimes people mistakenly believe ahead of time that it will be easy. So sharing your test apparatus and test and measurement strategy could really help you and make for a good discussion at the same time.
I just mean something different than you do. I may be perceived by some as acerbic. Philip seems more like someone who has a particular goal and really little in the way of qualms as to how it is achieved. To wit: He, at least in his huffing and puffing speechifying would bring the law against Overunity in order to get what measly data they have about me. You keep acting like someone who thinks they deserve respect. Because in the world of Bruce_TPU complex and complete personality analysis can be done through a few exchanges on the internet. Psychologists the world over thank you for simplifying their complex tasks.
Because wishing bad things on people is always the right thing to do. You're a pretty bad advertisement for your religion, just sayin'Isn't calling someone a "paid schill" defamation?If you mean that Philip is a bad manager. That has been explained as a logical consequence of believing in the Quenco technlogy and the reports of Philip. If we are to believe your accounting this has been explained to you 59 times without you grasping it. Not something I'd boast about personally.
Also, it's been mentioned to you that Philip agrees with the assessment. Well I built something that I doubt you will ever be able to: A cogent argument.
Let me know when you can build one of those and you might get some respect out of me. Until then you're just some junkyard dog yipping at someone who dares to take either your or Philip's name in vain. Real humble for a theist.
True religion is to visit the widows and orphans in their affliction.Uh ever read the rest of that verse? "and to keep oneself unstained by the world." perhaps presuming to judge things that you aren't really in a position to might come under that heading. Your exegesis is kind of crappy as well.
So, no, hoping that Philip really does sue you for two particular comments that you make would set a good precedent. People think that they can hide behind a veil of anonymity on the internet and defame who they want.Please provide your evidence for 'defamation' or an apology. Because accusations of defamation are also defamation. :)
I have not had a "problem" with ANY argument about this tech, or any other, (as I have stated at least twice before)Actually what I'm saying is that in terms of "building" something. Which you're constantly on about. The one useful thing with regard to this discussion is something you are apparently incapable of building. A cogent argument. Feel free to try that some year.
but I have a problem with your defamation of the person of Philip as an individual.Except that I haven't defamed him. Your defaming me apparently is okay in your world.
In your world, disrespet is okIn my world respect is earned anyone who hasn't earned it doesn't get it. If you want to call that "disrespect" then that's your deal. On the other hand you give respect away for free as long as you think someone is "building" something (but that doesn't include building logical constructs like arguments)
and lying is okI haven't lied. Please provide evidence or an apology. Since you're defaming me now. :)
and defamation is ok.No, which is why I haven't done it...you on the other hand seem to think it's okay. Don't worry you're not the first Christian hypocrite and you won't be the last.
I personally think that it is a shame that you have run off PhilipIf you read Philip - reading! Bruce_TPU should try it! - he left because OU wouldn't disclose information to him and now he says he's going to attempt to bully them into it. Which doesn't make me think of Philip as a very big man IMHO. Prior to that Philip didn't even acknowledge me directly - except to make one spurious accusation.
and think that you should be ashamed of yourself. (even though I know that you won't)You seem to think a lot of your opinions. Not sure why.
Unfortunately I have seen the likes of you, over the years, haunting this forum.Yes, your beliefs about someone else can't possibly be in error. Very good way of thinking for a scientist.
Everyone else has given up even dealing with youOutside of responding to your defamatory remarks, I've been posting with MBM, TK, lumen and forcefield concerning my views about what makes Philips ideas wrong. I get that most of what I post is beyond your abilities. That's okay but please stop pretending that you're not the cause of most of the exchanges between us.
but I think to allow you to continue to hijack this thread with your continued hijinks would be a mistake.So Bruce_TPU who has posted nothing of merit. Almost all of his posts can be summed up as "Hush and be patient", "You are a troll" and "Yay Philip". Is saying that someone who is contributing to the thread (me) is hijacking it. Perhaps you might remove that log from your eye before attempting to remove my mote...
Respect is earnedSo therefore lack of respect in your world is okay too. Given any thought to actually posting something that was internally consistent? Just sayin'
What has your "argument" contributed to this thread?Some things that you might not be able to see because of that huge tree in your eye...
Most here would declare in a loud chorus of voices, NOTHING. And of course this doesn't matter to youI don't know who "most" is but even if it were true. Does popularity imply truth. If not, why *would* the popular opinion matter to me. Heck isn't OU a place where unpopular opinions are hosted? Isn't it a little ironic to be harassing someone for an unpopular opinion on a board which hosts unpopular opinions?
True religion is to visit the widows and orphans in their affliction. So, no, hoping that Philip really does sue you for two particular comments that you make would set a good precedent. People think that they can hide behind a veil of anonymity on the internet and defame who they want.
I have not had a "problem" with ANY argument about this tech, or any other, (as I have stated at least twice before) but I have a problem with your defamation of the person of Philip as an individual. In your world, disrespet is ok, and lying is ok, and defamation is ok. But perhaps in the fog of your brain, (I say this because you repeat yourself, over and over and over and over and over again) you perhaps have short term memory loss.
I personally think that it is a shame that you have run off Philip, and think that you should be ashamed of yourself. (even though I know that you won't) Unfortunately I have seen the likes of you, over the years, haunting this forum. Everyone else has given up even dealing with you, but I think to allow you to continue to hijack this thread with your continued hijinks would be a mistake.
Respect is earned, and you have only earned yours from the expected dynamic duo. Congratulations on their shared accolades.
What has your "argument" contributed to this thread? Most here would declare in a loud chorus of voices, NOTHING. And of course this doesn't matter to you, so in the crisp concise words of Lumen,
"blah, blah, blah".
Uh ever read the rest of that verse? "and to keep oneself unstained by the world." perhaps presuming to judge things that you aren't really in a position to might come under that heading. Your exegesis is kind of crappy as well.
Haha! The Lord bring peace into your life. Please continue to judge me and spew your exegetical prowess.
Please provide your evidence for 'defamation' or an apology. Because accusations of defamation are also defamation. :)
Your claim that Philip has previously defrauded on payments of rewards, not once but on other occasions, thus calling him a fraud, cheat and liar by implication. (You hypocrite)
Actually what I'm saying is that in terms of "building" something. Which you're constantly on about. The one useful thing with regard to this discussion is something you are apparently incapable of building. A cogent argument. Feel free to try that some year.
I have ZERO interest in presenting a cogent argument to you about Philips tech. I choose to be patient and wait to see if anything materializes or not.
Except that I haven't defamed him.
Self delusional and doesn't listen. As state above. Reread it please even though I know it won't stick in your arrogant brain.
Your defaming me apparently is okay in your world.In my world respect is earned anyone who hasn't earned it doesn't get it. If you want to call that "disrespect" then that's your deal.
I have no respect for someone who continually is out to assasinate the character of another both by word and implication. The forum members judge between me and thee.
On the other hand you give respect away for free as long as you think someone is "building" something (but that doesn't include building logical constructs like arguments)I haven't lied. Please provide evidence or an apology.
Yes, as long as someone is following their dream, building something, and not just passing wind, they have my respect. PC hero's do not.
Since you're defaming me now. :)
If the truth defames you, that I can not help you with that.
No, which is why I haven't done it...you on the other hand seem to think it's okay. Don't worry you're not the first Christian hypocrite and you won't be the last.
Please continue to interject Christianity into it. I take a stand for what I feel is right and just. And your character assasination of Philip is disgusting. Evil triumps when good men do nothing. And defamation and character assasination fit that category for me. And to the readers, this is the only reason I have wasted (and it is a waste) this much time trying to talk sense to a rock.
If you read Philip - reading! Bruce_TPU should try it! - he left because OU wouldn't disclose information to him and now he says he's going to attempt to bully them into it. Which doesn't make me think of Philip as a very big man IMHO.
And you think you are a "big man"? You are a very small man. IMHO
Prior to that Philip didn't even acknowledge me directly -
The route we all should have gone. He is indeed smarter than the rest of us.
except to make one spurious accusation.You seem to think a lot of your opinions. Not sure why.
Hmm.. that is a tough one... Let's see... Oh! Got it! Because I think your defamation and character assasination is evil and wrong. Yep, that is it in a nut shell!
Yes, your beliefs about someone else can't possibly be in error.
It is one thing to question the tech and a whole other to question the motives, integrity, etc. of an individual that you know nothing about.
Very good way of thinking for a scientist.Outside of responding to your defamatory remarks, I've been posting with MBM, TK, lumen and forcefield concerning my views about what makes Philips ideas wrong. I get that most of what I post is beyond your abilities.
I am not interested honestly, in much of anything you have to say, right wrong or indifferent. You have brought me to that point, probably about 60 posts ago.
That's okay but please stop pretending that you're not the cause of most of the exchanges between us.So Bruce_TPU who has posted nothing of merit.
I stopped posting on this thread, until you throw my name up there in one of your long winded trolling platitudes. Feel free to go back and check.
Almost all of his posts can be summed up as "Hush and be patient"
Yes, so true. Unfortunately it was not heeded.
, "You are a troll"
I speak the truth and lie not. You are a troll.
and "Yay Philip".
Yea Philip! Be encouraged Philip and don't let the likes of this fellow dissuade you. You have a lot to be admired. You use your real name on this forum. You have been here for some time. You had and followed your dream. Respect. 8)
Is saying that someone who is contributing to the thread (me) is hijacking it. Perhaps you might remove that log from your eye before attempting to remove my mote...
Yes, I would agree, I too have wasted too much bandwidth on you in this thread. I won't post to you again if you leave my name out of your dour comments. Even though I doubt you could do that, for that is part of what you do.
So therefore lack of respect in your world is okay too. Given any thought to actually posting something that was internally consistent? Just sayin'Some things that you might not be able to see because of that huge tree in your eye...
Not concerned with your judgments nor perspectives on either my logs or trees. Just sayin'. . . .
I've provided some decision theory concerning expectations on Philip as well as a mathematical basis for modeling it.
I've provided sound reasons as to why a MD device can not work under information theory.
I've provided a reason why Lumen's (and probably Philips) "Oh our sort algorithm doesn't cost anything to run" is wrong based on computational complexity.
I've stated that my thinking isn't necessarily correct - something you might learn from.
Your last statement is the best I have heard yet. And honestly if "being right" is worth the hell, defamation and character assination you have done both with Philip and now myself, well, please, be right all that you want. I want no part of you. It stinks like rotted fruit.
I don't know who "most" is but even if it were true. Does popularity imply truth. If not, why *would* the popular opinion matter to me. Heck isn't OU a place where unpopular opinions are hosted? Isn't it a little ironic to be harassing someone for an unpopular opinion on a board which hosts unpopular opinions?
Again, for the 4th and final time. Let me put this in the way that even a small child can understand.... Ok, here it goes..... "It is not nessacerily what you say but how you say it." There, that about sums it up.
Please continue to judge meNot judging just saying what the verse says. Perhaps you need to look at yourself more than me.
Your claim that Philip has previously defrauded on payments of rewardsNope, you misunderstood. Try again....Again perhaps considering that what I know about certain conversations concerning bets might just happen, somehow by the slightest of chances to be greater than what Bruce_TPU knows. You know, just saying that you might actually not know something for once. :)
not once but on other occasions, thus calling him a fraud, cheat and liar by implication.You really have to be clearer here. I have no idea what statement of mine you're talking about.
I have ZERO interest in presenting a cogent argumentThanks for confirming that...so since you have no interest in cogent arguments...how about you just be patient somewhere quietly hmmm?
As state above. Reread it please even though I know it won't stick in your arrogant brain.In which you misunderstood the text you read.
I have no respect for someone who continually is out to assasinate the character of another both by word and implication.So having no respect is okay in your world. Thus you have no reason to have a problem that neither you nor Philip have given me any reason to respect either of you.
The forum members judge between me and thee.Argument by popularity...Is logic ever a thing for you?
Yes, as long as someone is following their dream, building something, and not just passing wind, they have my respect. PC hero's do not.But building things like an argument don't count...right?
If the truth defames you, that I can not help you with that.Sorry but you haven't stated the truth. Again *reading* helps but keep feeding your pride there. I hear that always ends well.
Please continue to interject Christianity into it.Look either your a good witness or your a bad one...right here and now it seems like you're a pretty bad one.
I take a stand for what I feel is right and just.Oh good, "feelings" yeah well there's a long line of horrible people who did what they *feel* is right and just. I generally dislike speechifying but should I, at some point need to account for my actions I'll be happy to be counted among those who understood deeply WHY they did what they did rather than those who simply FELT it.
And your character assasination of Philip is disgusting.Always makes you feel good to pretend you're superior I bet. I have, many times pointed out that at least one thing that I've talked about concerning Philip. Is a logical consequence of two statements. Again, logic - feel free to embrace it sometime.
Evil triumps when good men do nothing.Nothing like putting convenient labels like "evil" on someone just so you can harass them. Isn't there an ethnic or cultural people group you should be harassing about now?
And defamation and character assasination fit that category for me.Neither has happened. So how about you stop derailing the thread?
And you think you are a "big man"? You are a very small man. IMHOI think of myself as normal sized. However attempting to take legal action against someone who otherwise supports you (OU) because they won't indulge your petty revenge seems like the actions of a small man. Perhaps you differ on this subject?
Hmm.. that is a tough one... Let's see... Oh! Got it! Because I think your defamation and character assasinationWait? What? So you think highly of your opinions because of something that is your opinion? Are you on medication?
is evil and wrong. Yep, that is it in a nut shell!Well whatever you do, make sure you don't have an intellectual argument. As long as you keep using labels like "evil" you'll be able to feel good about whatever you do. No matter how bad.
It is one thing to question the tech and a whole other to question the motives, integrity, etc. of an individual that you know nothing about.In other words you should question yourself more about me... As for Philip I've said the things I've talked about - such as being a bad manager, are a logical consequence of BELIEVING in the tech and the HONESTY of Philip. Not to mention Philip appears to agree that he is a bad manager.
I am not interested honestly, in much of anything you have to say, right wrong or indifferentIsn't that like saying: Truth, lies it's all the same. I personally wouldn't be proud of that. Just sayin'
...and all of that is pretty much irrelevant to the thread. So it's nice that you confirm that you're hijacking the thread.
Almost all of his posts can be summed up as "Hush and be patient"
Yes, so true. Unfortunately it was not heeded.
, "You are a troll"
I speak the truth and lie not. You are a troll.
and "Yay Philip".
Yea Philip! Be encouraged Philip and don't let the likes of this fellow dissuade you. You have a lot to be admired. You use your real name on this forum. You have been here for some time. You had and followed your dream.
Sorry, you haven't earned any respect yet troll. Make cogent arguments instead of constant pronouncements and pontifications. Reason, not religion.
Yes, I would agree, I too have wasted too much bandwidth on you in this thread. I won't post to you again if you leave my name out of your dour comments.
Not concerned with your judgments nor perspectives on either my logs or trees. Just sayin'. . . .Most people with huge blind spots seldom are. That's how they get to be so big.
Weird you're so wrapped up in yourself you really don't let yourself read what I'm saying. I'm saying, I don't think I'm necessarily correct. I allow argument about my ideas. You and Philip both come here with big loads of "Absolute Truth" to dump on folks. No offense nobody needs that. Ever. People need reason, information, logic, rationality. You need to spend your time thinking you're WRONG because as Feynman said you are always the easiest person to fool
I've provided some decision theory concerning expectations on Philip as well as a mathematical basis for modeling it.
I've provided sound reasons as to why a MD device can not work under information theory.
I've provided a reason why Lumen's (and probably Philips) "Oh our sort algorithm doesn't cost anything to run" is wrong based on computational complexity.
I've stated that my thinking isn't necessarily correct - something you might learn from.
Your last statement is the best I have heard yet. And honestly if "being right" is worth the hell, defamation and character assination you have done both with Philip and now myself, well, please, be right all that you want. I want no part of you. It stinks like rotted fruit.
Again, for the 4th and final time. Let me put this in the way that even a small child can understand.... Ok, here it goes..... "It is not nessacerily what you say but how you say it." There, that about sums it up.ROTFL. Except you've said the opposite for your entire post. Everything you've posted is about WHAT I've said. If that was the case you would have had pages about my use of "donkey balls" rather than talking about "assassination" - assassination is WHAT you are doing - "donkey balls" would be - assuming your presumption is true - HOW you are doing it.
It is my claim that the above device will unequivocally violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT).
Immersed in a single reservoir of heat it will produce a continuous electrical output exceeding 1 Watt.
From http://quentron.com/index.html (http://quentron.com/index.html)
The diagram of the Sebithenco Device shows heater elements which will produce a temperature differential through the device. This is not "a single reservoir of heat."
I would like to see a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but I don't see how this experiment can demonstrate that.
The heaters elements are explained in the page.
... these are very low wattage heaters that have three functions, firstly they are PTCs and act as high accuracy thermometers, secondly they can induce a DeltaT in either direction thus eliminating any claim of the device operating off a Delta T in a given direction, thirdly they can be used as a calorimeter capable of measuring temperature depression when the external load is connected and is extracting energy from the device.
My original understanding of this experiment was that the Sebithenco Device was a vacuum tube without heater elements and that it was immersed in a bath of temperature controlled hot air....and the page seems pretty unclear. It says "the above device" and there's an image of what looks like a diagram of a vacuum tube. Given what the Philibuster has said about the tube experiments it seems unlikely to deliver a whole watt. If he means the device below, then as you've noted there are other ingredients in the mix now. Therefore there are more sources of error.
You are indeed one of THE crudest, rudest,You need to get out more..or get HBO.
arrogant, hard headedTo me, arrogant means speaking beyond one's knowledge and hard-headed means refusing correction. It would be nice if, instead of just pronouncing from your throne. You actually pointed out where I do these things. I doubt I do the former and the later....I just don't accept correction unless there's a cogent argument attached. I appreciate that you must be used to people taking you at your word and perhaps bowing down to you or something. However, in this particular place your word isn't worth anything without an argument (which includes evidence). Nobody's is.
Isn't the discussion here about a nuclear process? Like decaying?
Elisha, what you are demanding is called "censorship" and "prior restraint". In many parts of the world we acknowledge that freedom of speech is a fundamental human right
All that, and yet the drinking bird still continues to drink from the isothermal environment!
Go figure.
It's not an isothermal environment - it works only as a result of it being in a non isothermal environment.
Sorry, it just occurred to me that your quote may have been a metaphor since everyone knows how those birds work!A metaphor of what? Nobody has a quenco...not even Philip.
A metaphor of what? Nobody has a quenco...not even Philip.
No idea what the metaphor could be - I suggested it could be a metaphor because its the only sensible explanation......everyone knows about the 'drinking bird' toy and how it won't work in an isothermal env (or maybe not, who knows!).Not sure either but perhaps it's just a way of saying "well I roasted a vacuum tube and that settles it for me". Me, even if I did stick a tube into an oven and saw a voltage and a current. It's difficult to know that you're ruling out every possible non-2LOT violating explanation.
Hey, as an idea to PJH (as you say, he's listening!) how about a photo or two of some prototypes as a good indication of this whole adventure being real - I mean real as in 'someone is producing something'!I'd be more in favor of a series of diagrams explaining exactly what he thinks is happening at the electron level and specifically showing it break 2LOT. I'm not sure how much I doubt that Philip has attempted to make something. Like a few projects I've seen, this seems like pathological science more than outright fraud. That said, I doubt Philip is telling people the whole truth.
No reason for him not to, every reason for him to do so?
Not sure either but perhaps it's just a way of saying "well I roasted a vacuum tube and that settles it for me". Me, even if I did stick a tube into an oven and saw a voltage and a current. It's difficult to know that you're ruling out every possible non-2LOT violating explanation.I'd be more in favor of a series of diagrams explaining exactly what he thinks is happening at the electron level and specifically showing it break 2LOT.
I'm not sure how much I doubt that Philip has attempted to make something. Like a few projects I've seen, this seems like pathological science more than outright fraud. That said, I doubt Philip is telling people the whole truth.
That's kind of what I am getting at - I doubt that Stanford has even heard of Quenco let alone built one.As I've said before. I seriously doubt Stanford is involved in the sense that it's helping him with research. What, if anything seems likely is he is renting facilities. Anyone with money can do that. Does Philip seem sufficiently convinced he's right to spend....whatever....on flying to the USA and attempting to make the unmakable. It seems plausible assuming he had the money. If he can let go of a $200K property then he probably has some money to spare.
If you see his website www.quentron.com he is offering $200,666 to any University that can prove his device does not workWell I just looked and saw that it now says "does not clearly violate 2LOT" and the definition as to what that means is left up to some person who is unnamed but their only credential is that they are a professor of physics.
such an offer seems to contradict the opinion that he has doubts.It might only say that he has no doubts that someone can disconfirm the test.
It makes sense to either claim the money or see a Law of physics revised, either way where is the harm in a University contacting him?Well because he's probably wrong and giving someone else permission to publish work, essentially using your influence as a university as advertising for Philip, who is likely wrong (even by his own standard of evidence) is probably a good way to get fired.
He says no one has, that seems hard to believe.Really? All Philip did was put up a webpage. Do you think if you put up a webpage (that looks like a kid did it) saying you would award $300,000 to any University who performs an experiment that you would be flooded with offers inside of ten or so days? By what mechanism would that happen? Do universities hire people to constantly google "university challenge $200,666" - Yes you need to google those exact terms to get Quenco as the top hit. Philp should hire someone who knows how to do proper cyber-marketing.
iv) You have 9 days to create the device, test it, confirm the results and have a press conference .It seems like Philip chose a incredibly short timeframe on purpose.
Where, or how do you arrive at 9 days?Sorry I had to re-read the web page. 9 days to accept the challenge and now it seems you have about 33 work days to complete it. Still not that much time.
The web page keeps changing itself at a very high frequency. It's maybe appropriate to attach screenshots of the page under discussion.Anyone notice that he's now offering some Adult Magazines with his university challenge. lumen, Bruce_TPU you really think this is still on the level?
Anyone notice that he's now offering some Adult Magazines with his university challenge. lumen, Bruce_TPU you really think this is still on the level?
Seriously Bruce_TPU, et. al. - I've been patient. I've taken the wait and see approach...and now we see he's offering a years subscription to Gazongas (and $66,666) if a university falsifies his claim. Why would you offer that to a university? I mean it's not like a university would *need* that....or a lab for that matter. Perhaps I really haven't been in a university in a while but do labs just have stacks of nudie books lying around? Really, Bruce_TPU I'd like to hear your take on this.
We are back at Stanford working to produce our first commercial Quenco devices from 21st January 2013.
This work is the continuation of work done in late 2012, it is anticipated that we will complete our work by early March 2013.[/size]
Anyone notice that he's now offering some Adult Magazines with his university challenge. lumen, Bruce_TPU you really think this is still on the level?
Seriously Bruce_TPU, et. al. - I've been patient. I've taken the wait and see approach...and now we see he's offering a years subscription to Gazongas (and $66,666) if a university falsifies his claim. Why would you offer that to a university? I mean it's not like a university would *need* that....or a lab for that matter. Perhaps I really haven't been in a university in a while but do labs just have stacks of nudie books lying around? Really, Bruce_TPU I'd like to hear your take on this.
The clock keeps ticking and time is running out to make the "new deadline" that was established in December 2012. We can't forget that December 2012 itself was an "absolute drop-dead deadline."...not to mention other deadlines like...
Many partial Quenco films have been made to date, they have been tested for match to required parameters using CV and STM and all passed, full distributable film (1cm2 Silver substrates) to be made this week and completed by 10 August.Posted in Moletrap in 2012 and another...my favorite...
I will simply leave it to you to read the newspapers in late February 2012.Prior to that (around December 28th 2012) he mentioned the following excuse
I am passing time since the Uni Lab failed to deliver before their winter break.Sound at all familiar to anyone here?
Anyone notice that he's now offering some Adult Magazines with his university challenge. lumen, Bruce_TPU you really think this is still on the level?
Seriously Bruce_TPU, et. al. - I've been patient. I've taken the wait and see approach...and now we see he's offering a years subscription to Gazongas (and $66,666) if a university falsifies his claim. Why would you offer that to a university? I mean it's not like a university would *need* that....or a lab for that matter. Perhaps I really haven't been in a university in a while but do labs just have stacks of nudie books lying around? Really, Bruce_TPU I'd like to hear your take on this.
Skizo, did you hack his web site to put that up there or someone else? since you have sh** for brains that answers that question. you are not smart enough to hack notepad text. you got such a hard on for quentron that i imagine you are the one that's got nudie books laying all over your place. maybe that was a popup google ad just for you since you undoubtedly spend your time only two places. here and your nudie sites. your confused boy. one sick puppy poking at everything expecting to cure your problem by stiffing quentron.
Skizo, did you hack his web site to put that up there or someone else? since you have sh** for brains that answers that question. you are not smart enough to hack notepad text. you got such a hard on for quentron that i imagine you are the one that's got nudie books laying all over your place. maybe that was a popup google ad just for you since you undoubtedly spend your time only two places. here and your nudie sites. your confused boy. one sick puppy poking at everything expecting to cure your problem by stiffing quentron.
They are aggitators and the aggitated. Even to the point of photo shopping changes to his homepage.Interesting! Bruce_TPU can't believe that the screenshot is real. A good half-dozen people saw it on moletrap.
Well if you can repeat that in a decent university and properly witnessed you will be the proud winner of a playboy subscription and a large wedge of cash.
Skizo, did you hack his web site to put that up there or someone else? since you have sh** for brains that answers that question. you are not smart enough to hack notepad text. you got such a hard on for quentron that i imagine you are the one that's got nudie books laying all over your place. maybe that was a popup google ad just for you since you undoubtedly spend your time only two places. here and your nudie sites. your confused boy. one sick puppy poking at everything expecting to cure your problem by stiffing quentron.
They are aggitators and the aggitated. Even to the point of photo shopping changes to his homepage. Sitting here laughing at this trio of brilliance, but more like the three stooges. Hahaha
[/quote
I laughed at this, only because I suspect it took you a long time :)
Nice work, kids.
Interesting! Bruce_TPU can't believe that the screenshot is real. A good half-dozen people saw it on moletrap.
Even Trim (who I assume is Trim12 over here) who has met Philip (by his testimony on moletrap) and supported Philip (both here and at moletrap) certainly implied that the offer was real.
From moletrap...
Soooo what's your explanation now Bruce_TPU?
Bruce_TPU you just switched your argument. First it was that *I* had Photoshopped something now it's "somebody".
Oh my! It it was posted on Moletrap then it must be true!
There are no hackersSo was it a hack then? Doesn't that mean it can't be a photoshopped image? Just sayin'
I am telling you that is not the character of Philip Hardcastle and is a step taken to discredit him.Oh and that's based on your years of frendship. At least Trim and Philip agree that they've met. Have you met Philip?
P.S. Philip actually uses his real name. First and last. And always has.Uh....you're bringing this up...why? Also is your last name REALLY TPU? Is that Welsh?
What is your real name?Frank. Bartholomew. Julius. - Since you wouldn't believe that a screenshot I posted was legit. Why would you believe whatever I said my real name was? Also forgive me if I wouldn't disclose that to someone who, so recently wished me harm. No offense but you're kind of a bad person - at least what you show here anyway.
We will wait and see what comes of quenco.No...YOU will wait and see. Apparently forever. After all, last December you would have said the same thing "Wait until Feb" and next December you would say the same thing. Don't you think that means your decision making skills are kind of horrible?
I never wish you harm. :)You wished that Philip would sue me and win. That is harm in just about any useful sense of the term. No matter how you would like to rationalize it (i.e. Mountains of rhetoric about "evil"). As I said, what you show here is that you're a bad person.
We will wait and see. IF Philip did indeed post that, then all credibility is out the window.So now you've dropped your accusation - without apology no less. So, what about if he fails to deliver end of February. Does he at least lose some credibility there? or can Philip ONLY lose credibility when promising girly magazines to universities?
You wished that Philip would sue me and win. That is harm in just about any useful sense of the term. No matter how you would like to rationalize it (i.e. Mountains of rhetoric about "evil"). As I said, what you show here is that you're a bad person.
One day, you will learn to think in a clear and useful way. I doubt it will be soon.So now you've dropped your accusation - without apology no less. So, what about if he fails to deliver end of February. Does he at least lose some credibility there? or can Philip ONLY lose credibility when promising girly magazines to universities?
February has turned to March on the website.A year passed. Winter changed into Spring. Spring changed into Summer. Summer changed back into Winter. And Winter gave Spring and Summer a miss and went straight on into Autumn.
A year passed. Winter changed into Spring. Spring changed into Summer. Summer changed back into Winter. And Winter gave Spring and Summer a miss and went straight on into Autumn.
(And hundreds of other arguments put forward in this thread by sarkeizen.)
@sarkeizen: Do you think that Philip Hardcastle will be convinced by whatever you write?I'm not sure. Oddly he does appear to read what I post here. Some of the quentron web page changes match arguments I've made here pretty clearly. For example when I mocked his "Theory" page for not properly understanding how some information theory arguments against Maxwell's Demon worked he made changes to the quenco page adding arguments about the demon "running out of paper". He specifically mentioned "people who quote Feynman" on the quenco site after I mentioned Feynman's "first law" and his offer of adult entertainment wasn't taken off until it was posted here.
Typical of the selfish nature of human beingsYour moralizing is equally, if not significantly more selfish and less useful than my critique of Philip's science and his person.
highlighting the failures of a human beingWhen they are pertinent to the thing being discussed or are you advocating acting as if Philip never failed at anything? I think there's some obvious problems with that approach.
as stated before, "see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not see the beam in your own eye"Yes, stated before...by ME. The point of the text is that someone wants to CORRECT something that they have a significantly larger problem with. It in fact does not say that you should never take corrective action. In fact the very next verse says to remove the mote once having removed your log.
"he who is without sin cast the first stone". Always see the good qualities of the people not the bad, because if you only see the bad, then do not take advantage of good and stay in the same place forever.That's a particularly poor interpretation of the text. What is being talked about there is executing judgement, particularly to the fullest-extent of the law. This isn't a case of law - although a sermon like this might be particularly useful to someone like Philip who seems pretty eager to sue people or bully them with threats of lawsuits.
If you want to correct someone, look in the mirror and recognize your flaws then first Fix you !.In the particular case. The text is not talking about fixing your foot-fetish (or whatever) before telling people not to murder. So unless you can point out where we are doing the things Philip is doing. You don't have much of a case.
Apparently Philip began to joke with his page, making allusions to an adult magazine and the famous diabolical number 666, which is just a number. (And no one fell in the joke about the 666, but yes in the adult magazine joke).How is saying that you will give someone a 1 year subscription to playboy/girl an "allusion" in any useful sense of the term?
Please Focus on scienceSame criticism could be leveled very heavily on YOU. We have been talking about science - information theory, algorithmic complexity and you said: "...." the only time you've shown up is to moralize. That is not contributing. That is not focusing on the science. Mote -> Us, Log -> YOU.
you can not talk about something you have not experienced it yourselfWrong in every sense of the word. I can talk very, very intelligently about someones machine that claims to deterministicly tell you if any computer program will end. I never have to see it. I can still PROVE that it is not doing what it says it does.
but you run the risk of philosophies and mental constructs, which have nothing to do with science.Karl Popper would disagree and he probably knows more about the subject that you ever will.
Typical of the selfish nature of human beings, highlighting the failures of a human being, as stated before, "see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not see the beam in your own eye", "he who is without sin cast the first stone". Always see the good qualities of the people not the bad, because if you only see the bad, then do not take advantage of good and stay in the same place forever. If you want to correct someone, look in the mirror and recognize your flaws then first Fix you !.
Apparently Philip began to joke with his page, making allusions to an adult magazine and the famous diabolical number 666, which is just a number. (And no one fell in the joke about the 666, but yes in the adult magazine joke).
Please Focus on science, and made the experiment of 10$, professional or not, you can not talk about something you have not experienced it yourself, but you run the risk of philosophies and mental constructs, which have nothing to do with science.
Typical of the selfish nature of human beings, highlighting the failures of a human being, as stated before, "see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not see the beam in your own eye", "he who is without sin cast the first stone". Always see the good qualities of the people not the bad, because if you only see the bad, then do not take advantage of good and stay in the same place forever. If you want to correct someone, look in the mirror and recognize your flaws then first Fix you !.
Apparently Philip began to joke with his page, making allusions to an adult magazine and the famous diabolical number 666, which is just a number. (And no one fell in the joke about the 666, but yes in the adult magazine joke).
Please Focus on science, and made the experiment of 10$, professional or not, you can not talk about something you have not experienced it yourself, but you run the risk of philosophies and mental constructs, which have nothing to do with science.
I have to say there is a very bad vibe in this forum with page after page of character assassination going on, it looks to me like blatant bullying. Putting aside the issue of the claims and the experiment how is it that Hardcastle is attacked but Stephen Hawkings was not?
quote from his book A Brief History of Time:
This was a form of insurance policy for me. I have done a lot of work on black holes, and it would all be wasted if it turned out that black holes do not exist. But in that case, I would have the consolation of winning my bet, which would win me four years of the magazine Private Eye. If black holes do exist, Kip will get one year of Penthouse.
Or should we start a thread attacking Hawkings as a purveyor of pornography?
I have to say there is a very bad vibe in this forum with page after page of character assassination going on, it looks to me like blatant bullying. Putting aside the issue of the claims and the experiment how is it that Hardcastle is attacked but Stephen Hawkings was not?
quote from his book A Brief History of Time:
This was a form of insurance policy for me. I have done a lot of work on black holes, and it would all be wasted if it turned out that black holes do not exist. But in that case, I would have the consolation of winning my bet, which would win me four years of the magazine Private Eye. If black holes do exist, Kip will get one year of Penthouse.
Or should we start a thread attacking Hawkings as a purveyor of pornography?
Al, Tin, whatever you want to call yourself, you are the biggest loser!
I read between the lines here and at moletrap that you are an aging and failed drunk.
What I understand is that you have no money, no home of your own, and no woman in your life.
You do nothing other than masturbate your ego and dream of things you once were capable of.
You probably have some other issues to deal, focus on those and leave me out of your vitriol.
I have to say there is a very bad vibe in this forum with page after page of character assassination going onI've been trying to talk to elisha about his behavior.
How is it that Hardcastle is attacked but Stephen Hawkings was not?There is no "attack" you're kind of imagining things. Stupidly I might add. Sure it's fun to talk about Philip as offering wanking material as a reward for jerking him off. The, seemingly obvious and more salient point is about someone who took his bet so seriously that he was willing to sue me over comments I made concerning his behavior elsewhere. Again, he was willing to apply the rule of law to someone over this bet. To hurt someone financially over this bet. Now he's peddling "adult" magazines.
This was a form of insurance policy for me. I have done a lot of work on black holes, and it would all be wasted if it turned out that black holes do not exist. But in that case, I would have the consolation of winning my bet, which would win me four years of the magazine Private Eye. If black holes do exist, Kip will get one year of Penthouse.Again it seems that this isn't a serious bet. Think about it (thinking is good!), if Hawking lost and didn't pay out. Would you expect Thorne to sue him for the sum of "one Penthouse subscription"? Would you expect a university that provided Philip with a disconfirming experiment not to if Philip just said "Oh, tough luck" instead of writing a check?
I think YOU should do the 10$ experiment, Elisha. If you want to correct someone.... look in the mirror. You can not talk about something if you have not experienced it yourself... so let's see your work.TK,
This so called replication http://www.overunity.com/12207/quentron-com/msg342395/#msg342395 (http://www.overunity.com/12207/quentron-com/msg342395/#msg342395) and in general the "radio tube in an oven is a OU-proof" claim are very inconclusive.
My very simple explanation:
The oven is a very lively electromagnetic environment because some Kilowatt in electricity (220V 50 Hz, or 110 Volt 45 Hz) flow through the heating elements in the oven.
Whatever one places in the oven that has two wires sticking out will have µA or µW induced by the "mains hum" inside the oven.
It is very difficult to look at a µA or nA signal with an oscilloscope, but one would see the 45 Hz or 50 Hz frequency. One could amplify the signal with an OpAmp without falsifying it's frequency. But I am not interested enough in duing this so called OU-proof. But the people who want to believe the "radio tube in an oven is a OU-proof" should definitely look for the "mains hum" in their experiment.
Greetings, Conrad
That is true, but then why would you take the mesurements at that time?
Unplug the oven and see the results when it's not running. Heat is all your after and it's still hot right?
Hi Elisha, nice work.
Thanks for posting the results.
Very nice, well done.
It's strange how those with little, can do so much and those with so much, do so little!
Very good job Elisha!
Other than Milehigh and TK look what does get mentioned wrt Elisha's test.
Lumen goes especially far by implying there can't possibly be any reasonable non 2LOT violating reason for what is observed.
I'm with TK and this one you guys are so incredibly sloppy and uncritical with regard to your observations. I've mentioned before that Philip claims that the effect scales linearly - voltage in series and current in parallel (or he did on his ever-changing page). Why not do it with multiple valves in series at 100C using a chamber immersed in a sous-vide style boiler? Right now there is no useful explanation of what is happening at the atomic level, which explains why there is no useful argument as to why this violates 2LOT (lumen and Philip and elisha all make the logical flaw of "argument by ignorance") and this in turn explains why no experiment which validates a 2LOT violation has been. Therefore there is no reason stated by Philip as to why this arrangement wouldn't work.
Wow, so now lets say TK just found the photovoltaic effect, and now sarkeizen says something like "your crazy, it's just voltage induced from the florescent lighting" and now TK agrees and we never have solar cells!(Pssst...you're talking about people - you broke your own rule...again and again and again). :)
It is very clear that sarkeizen has no concept of how this is working and the proof is in his comment of connecting multiple valves in series to lower the operating temperature.Actually you're only half right. The point I'm making is that nobody has a clue. Philip has provided virtually nothing in the way of a mechanism for this. If you read, yes you need to learn this skill and you'll find it's quite useful. You'll find that what I've said is that this contradicts nothing that Philip has said about the mechanism of the $10 experiment. Which is virtually nothing.
If he had even a clue of how it worked he would have known that to lower the operating temperature the internal spacing of the valves needs to change. This lowers the barrier so lower energy electrons can traverse.Technically speaking you have no reason to believe you have a clue about what is happening. That doesn't get in the way of you presuming with an unreasonable degree of confidence which always, to me seems like a habit for the greatest of idiots. Anyway how do you know that lower temps wouldn't just produce a lower output? Philip noted a low output at < 400C. Did you do an experiment at 300C? Didn't think so. The output doesn't have to be linear (although Philip claimed it was linear).
To say that I imply there can't possibly be any non 2lot violating reason in Elisha's experiment is just over the edge thinking. I was implying that all the arguments given for inconclusive results, could be ruled out with a variation of the same test.But no argument, test or even the slightest mention of doubt as to why Elisha shouldn't have interpreted it as a 2LOT violation. Hence you are ARE implying that the experiential result is complete and satisfactory on it's own. Otherwise isn't it a better use of your time to show ways to make his experiment fail...that is if you actually think there is a REASONABLE NON-2LOT VIOLATING EXPLANATION - but if you don't just score me a point for sussing you out and move on.
but even Elisha's simple test is additional evidence that it does workWhat? Ok, so either you agree there is a reasonable non-2LOT violating explanation or you don't (you don't but since you whined about being misrepresented just a paragraph above let's humor you). If you do believe there is: How can it be *additional evidence* of a 2LOT violation? Hmmmm?
(Pssst...you're talking about people - you broke your own rule...again and again and again). :)
Actually what we're saying is that you always assume that you're making a mistake and try to correct it. Removing induced voltage from fluorescent lights is trivial or at the very least causing the observed effect to vary w.r.t. the induced voltage would be trivial.Actually you're only half right. The point I'm making is that nobody has a clue. Philip has provided virtually nothing in the way of a mechanism for this. If you read, yes you need to learn this skill and you'll find it's quite useful. You'll find that what I've said is that this contradicts nothing that Philip has said about the mechanism of the $10 experiment. Which is virtually nothing.Technically speaking you have no reason to believe you have a clue about what is happening. That doesn't get in the way of you presuming with an unreasonable degree of confidence which always, to me seems like a habit for the greatest of idiots. Anyway how do you know that lower temps wouldn't just produce a lower output? Philip noted a low output at < 400C. Did you do an experiment at 300C? Didn't think so. The output doesn't have to be linear (although Philip claimed it was linear).
But no argument, test or even the slightest mention of doubt as to why Elisha shouldn't have interpreted it as a 2LOT violation. Hence you are ARE implying that the experiential result is complete and satisfactory on it's own. Otherwise isn't it a better use of your time to show ways to make his experiment fail...that is if you actually think there is a REASONABLE NON-2LOT VIOLATING EXPLANATION - but if you don't just score me a point for sussing you out and move on.
This is what I mean (and I assume TK and MileHigh do too). You need to be self-critical. Just slapping each others backs accomplishes nothing.
What? Ok, so either you agree there is a reasonable non-2LOT violating explanation or you don't (you don't but since you whined about being misrepresented just a paragraph above let's humor you). If you do believe there is: How can it be *additional evidence* of a 2LOT violation? Hmmmm?
ROFL...
So in all your useless spiel, you actually admit that YOU do not understand the mechanism of operation!
Yet, you pretend to wield some authority on why it can't work?
You got to be kidding me.
Come back when you have something.
ROFL...
You know lumen I constantly have to remind myself that I'm talking to just one engineer who's a moron. Otherwise I might start thinking that this is how most engineers think.
So back to your post. According to you, a what was it? 30 year veteran of engineering it is impossible to state that something can not work without understanding the mechanism involved. I realize it's kind of your think to post and then run away for a while to soothe your ego or whatever but if you wouldn't mind just posting back and saying simply if this is your position. I'd appreciate it.
No, you can state anything you want about something you don't understand.I guess you need more help than I thought *sigh* good thing there are probably some adequate engineers helping you with your real world tasks. The question that was being asked was:
I guess you need more help than I thought *sigh* good thing there are probably some adequate engineers helping you with your real world tasks. The question that was being asked was:
"Are you saying it is impossible to *correctly and deterministically* state that something can not work without understanding *all* or the *majority* of the mechanism involved?"
Again I know you're off to jerk off now but before you do I'd appreciate it if you could just answer the ACTUAL question I asked. You know, as a favor.
I did answer the exact question you asked, but if you need an answer for the next question.Nope. It seems it's time to teach a little lesson for a 30 year veteran of engineering. 1st year math time.
I am saying that if you do not understand the principal of operation, then you could only predict a probability of failure but can never rule out a success.
Now, Elisha's experiment, no matter how crude, only serves to reinforce the fact that it worksDepends. If you mean "makes people believe in something more, even if it's a silly thing to believe" then that would be an appropriate use of the English term "reinforce" however if you mean "increases the probability that Philip is correct about...something...say that the experiment violates 2LOT" and if as one may reasonably infer that "crude" includes experiments of poor quality. Then you should be forced to take remedial statistics - if you leave me the e-mail of you're supervisor I'd be happy to make the argument to him, her or it.
but EVERYTHING you say can do nothing to disprove the test results.You need to use more precise English. If you mean "disprove the interpretation that the test results mean a violation of 2LOT". Then you're of course incorrect. I've laid out a logical argument, referenced well-known researchers and demonstrated that there are some pretty big problems with claiming a quantum process can violate 2LOT in the way described by Philip. Of course most of this is over your head but don't you think it's kind of silly to assume that something which is over your head is automatically wrong just because it doesn't jibe with a poorly done experiment?
Your words are not a test and have no real value especially now that you admit you do not understand the theory of operation"especially" is the wrong word. Either I can use a logical argument to demonstrate that something can't be done or I can not. If I can then your entire diatribe here falls. If not, well then your argument is self-negating. If logic can't demonstrate that something can not be done. Then an experiment doesn't mean anything either. I'm sure you don't see why but hey try to argue it. It'll be fun. :)
Sometimes very bright Folks can get "putzy"!
and sometimes "Putz's" can do very "brite" things!
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/08/ddwfttw/ (http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/08/ddwfttw/)
Thx
Chet
Interesting how some things just cannot be done until someone does it, then it all becomes clear how easy it was.More interesting how a 30 year engineering veteran can miss how little this applies to what we're talking about. "cannot be done" in this case means something different than what Turing's proof of the halting problem means by "cannot be done". In the case of this article it was a case of something a lot of people believed was impossible (or so the article claimed) but not only is there no proof excluding it but on the FIRST PAGE the guy does a simple vector analysis and says it's plausible. OMG someone did something PLAUSIBLE WOWOWOWOWOW!
Well let me rephrase that, "How easy it is once you UNDERSTAND how it works".Which is my point. It's irrelevant to what's being discussed here for the most part.
And, to think that no matter how many times he put that into his calculator, no one would believe it could work UNTIL he built it!Hey you used the word "think" as a verb in a positive context. That's a good start. Now it's time for you to try it at home. For example try thinking why the person writing might have been simply overstating and/or speaking figuratively for the sake of a narrative. Now again, thinking...try thinking how if they were serious about the 99.99% figure how they are probably not in a position to make such a statement. Now the bonus prize...try thinking how this statement of yours is irrelevant to what's being discussed here.
Wow, just seen the screenshot, incredible - I don't see it on the web anymore (as you said, he does appear to read your posts and act upon them).
I wonder if these guys ever got past the drawing board:
http://www.powerchips.gi/technology/overview.shtml
Looks like the exact same principle, lots of patents too.
They also started work on their quantum tunneling devices this week......they state it's 2-3 weeks work to complete. Riiiiight.
http://www.borealis.gi/investor/week.shtml
Maybe these guys and PJH should hook up given that Borealis hold patents on almost all aspects of production?
Has anyone heard from PJH or have any updates, has anyone been following Borealis/Powerchips - what are your thoughts?
Which is my point. It's irrelevant to what's being discussed here for the most part.Hey you used the word "think" as a verb in a positive context. That's a good start. Now it's time for you to try it at home. For example try thinking why the person writing might have been simply overstating and/or speaking figuratively for the sake of a narrative. Now again, thinking...try thinking how if they were serious about the 99.99% figure how they are probably not in a position to make such a statement. Now the bonus prize...try thinking how this statement of yours is irrelevant to what's being discussed here.
Or you could just not think and keep on going...stroke...stroke...stroke... (like in a rowboat)
Arguments aside, does anyone have an opinion on the guys above - they seemed to give up many years ago on this exact idea - could be a strong hint!
They also hold lots of patents re the 'idea' as well as many aspects of the manufacturing of the materials etc.
I will drop them an email today.
Arguments aside, does anyone have an opinion on the guys above - they seemed to give up many years ago on this exact idea - could be a strong hint!I just skimmed it but they're claiming 50% of the Carnot limit. That's not violating 2LOT. So at least they're not wearing as big a set of clown shoes as Philip. They claim to having working devices but it's not clear at what efficiency. The idea of generating power from thermionics isn't exactly new. 50% is way beyond the average thermocouple and better than most power plants. It's improbable that they have a device operating at that level of efficiency that is both scalable and cost-effective. So the only question is which one of those three are the missing?
I see no point in listening to a blind leader! Come back when you have a clue.*yawn* Is that all you have?
Yes, it does seem odd that now two people are claiming the same thing is possible?ROFL. Well they are not claiming the same thing. Philip, is claiming a 2LOT violating thermionic generator, the Power Chippers are claiming that they have a thermionic generator of unheard-of efficiency. Now perhaps in your rush to consider everything confirming evidence these might look the same but they are about as similar as a car and a car that travels faster-than-light.
I just skimmed it but they're claiming 50% of the Carnot limit. That's not violating 2LOT. So at least they're not wearing as big a set of clown shoes as Philip. They claim to having working devices but it's not clear at what efficiency. The idea of generating power from thermionics isn't exactly new. 50% is way beyond the average thermocouple and better than most power plants. It's improbable that they have a device operating at that level of efficiency that is both scalable and cost-effective. So the only question is which one of those three are the missing?
*yawn* Is that all you have?
You can't respond to the argument from complexity theory and information theory that I posted a while back. It's outside your abilities.
You can't argue against that the mathematical proof that you don't need some arbitrary detail on mechanism to demonstrate that something can't work.
Isn't it interesting how little you're contributing? The only thing you do is pop in for some cheerleading and some critique about me. In fact where was the last substantive post of yours where you weren't breaking your own rule about talking about people.
ROFL. Well they are not claiming the same thing. Philip, is claiming a 2LOT violating thermionic generator, the Power Chippers are claiming that they have a thermionic generator of unheard-of efficiency. Now perhaps in your rush to consider everything confirming evidence these might look the same but they are about as similar as a car and a car that travels faster-than-light.
Funny how much you bragged about having a greater clue than myself but you apparently haven't read any of the history on thermionic generation.
Yes, it does seem odd that now two people are claiming the same thing is possible?
One of which appears to have quit years ago!
I wonder if PJH knows he's repeating their work?
Madebymonkeys: Page4 Q: Reply #56 A: Reply #57
Sincerely
CdL
Oh, so you finally did read something on thermionic generators.Ages ago and apparently you think people looking into thermionic generators is something new. Otherwise it wouldn't be "odd'. You really do put enormous effort into misunderstanding what I've been posting. I suppose the upside to that is that you'll never have to stop stroking (your ego).
What a start, now you should progress to "work function" and then to electron tunneling.Actually, as stated in my first few posts here. If you think that electron tunneling and thermionic emission inherently violate 2LOT then you understand less about Philip's device than I do. The problem with Philip's device, as has been explained over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over to you. Isn't those things, it's that he states that he can violate 2LOT with them. However he begs the question as to how. Which you admitted. QED.
My apologies, missed that - looks like I am a bit behind (a bit like PJH :) ).My guess is that it simply did not produce at the efficiency level they claimed. At least two reasons for this: i) The drop between nominal efficiency and theoretical efficiency was larger than expected. ii) they simply were overly optimistic in their estimations.
I must admit, it does quack like the same duck though!
Borealis do hold some patents on this so if it worked (and was cost effective) its hard to believe its not in use somewhere or other - I could be wrong but it sounds as if there was just no need for it at the price point they were offering at?
Maybe it's about time for an update from PJH (although he owes us nothing etc etc) - a defensive one at least!
All technical, scientific, and commercial statements regarding technologies and their impacts are based on the educated judgment of the Company's technical and scientific staff. No assurance can be made that the assumptions upon which management based its forward-looking statements will prove to be correct, or that the Company's business and operations will not be affected in any substantial manner by other factors not currently foreseeable by management or beyond the Company's control.
Ages ago and apparently you think people looking into thermionic generators is something new. Otherwise it wouldn't be "odd'. You really do put enormous effort into misunderstanding what I've been posting. I suppose the upside to that is that you'll never have to stop stroking (your ego).Actually, as stated in my first few posts here. If you think that electron tunneling and thermionic emission inherently violate 2LOT then you understand less about Philip's device than I do. The problem with Philip's device, as has been explained over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over to you. Isn't those things, it's that he states that he can violate 2LOT with them. However he begs the question as to how. Which you admitted. QED.
Of course you still haven't presented a counter argument to the one I gave concerning information theory and algorithmic complexity...which is, somehow over a 30 year old engineering veteran's head.
Likewise you still haven't provided a counter argument for why it's possible to make a deterministic and correct statement about the failure of a device without knowing it's internal mechanism.
Should I assume you've conceded those points?
The valve in FACT does violate 2LOT!Which valve? Elisha's? You mean something done in a toaster oven is irrefutable? If it's not then it's hard to call it as a 2LOT violation "in fact". What you mean is you think this is evidence to suggest a 2LOT violation and people like me (and TK and Milehigh) respectfully (and disrespectfully) state that the evidence is poor at best.
Why don't you get this! scratch scratch, Oh yes, because you ADMIT you do not UNDERSTAND how it works!Why would that have anything to do with buying what Elisha and you are selling? Please explain. As I've already provided a proof (in the strong mathematical sense not the pathetically weak lumen sense of the term) of how you don't need to a things mechanism to prove it doesn't work.
Well for the OLD information theory and algorithmic complexity...which is, somehow over a 30 year old engineering veteran's head?Again, you still haven't presented a counter argument to the one I gave concerning information theory and algorithmic complexity.
I used to be confined also by the same box confining others also
, I have in 30 years found that the more people claim they know, the less you need to listen.So nobody needs to listen to someone like lumen. Who has time and time and time and time made unsubstantiated assertions. Every post you make some immensely egotistical statement. Some adage, some poorly defined generalization. So by your logic nobody should listen to you. Seems like the only sane thing you've said. :)
Words of wisdom are often thought, but seldom spoken.See, that's a good example of someone (lumen) who claims they know so very much. Look at the generality of that statement. It covers an excessively (and ill defined) large group of concepts. It also is very probably unsubstantiated. Since it requires knowledge that is, in all likelihood beyond the abilities of the person who formulated it. Sayings like that are nice, but it's more for a cocktail party not serious thinking.
Which valve? Elisha's? You mean something done in a toaster oven is irrefutable? If it's not then it's hard to call it as a 2LOT violation "in fact". What you mean is you think this is evidence to suggest a 2LOT violation and people like me (and TK and Milehigh) respectfully (and disrespectfully) state that the evidence is poor at best.
Why would that have anything to do with buying what Elisha and you are selling? Please explain. As I've already provided a proof (in the strong mathematical sense not the pathetically weak lumen sense of the term) of how you don't need to a things mechanism to prove it doesn't work.Again, you still haven't presented a counter argument to the one I gave concerning information theory and algorithmic complexity.
Nor have you still provided a counter argument for why it's possible to make a deterministic and correct statement about the failure of a device without knowing it's internal mechanism.
You even tried and failed miserably at attempting to disprove the Church-Turing thesis. If you want, give it another go. Please make information theory history here and now in the OU forums....or you could....you know....admit that you don't need to know how your program's mechanism to know that it can't work. :)So nobody needs to listen to someone like lumen. Who has time and time and time and time made unsubstantiated assertions. Every post you make some immensely egotistical statement. Some adage, some poorly defined generalization. So by your logic nobody should listen to you. Seems like the only sane thing you've said. :)
By comparison, and I don't really mean to blow my own horn here but all I've done is assert a few things based on the research of people who have studied physics and information theory much longer than I have. I even made a summary post referencing the works (by author name mostly). If you have a logical argument please present it. If you don't and just want to vent your spleen at me for whatever inadequacy you're working through. Feel free but it doesn't take a genius to point out that's practically all you do here.See, that's a good example of someone (lumen) who claims they know so very much. Look at the generality of that statement. It covers an excessively (and ill defined) large group of concepts. It also is very probably unsubstantiated. Since it requires knowledge that is, in all likelihood beyond the abilities of the person who formulated it. Sayings like that are nice, but it's more for a cocktail party not serious thinking.
1: It's really not my job to try and get you up to speed on how things work....and you haven't been asked that.
2: Your matimatical proof does not work in view of previously observed results in the contrary.Ever think of being even a little precise? One would think that would be valued in an engineer. The only proof I mentioned in the last post was the Church-Turing thesis (which isn't actually a proof but the portion we're concerned about - the halting problem has been proved.) which smashes your idea that you must know some arbitrary level detail on the mechanism of a thing in order to demonstrate that it can not do what it claims to do. Since we can PROVE unequivocally that no computer program can be written which satisfies the halting problem. So ALL programs which profess to solve it CAN NOT WORK. Clearly then all we need to know about a computer program which is supposed to solve the halting problem is that it's purpose is to solve the halting problem. Thus not only is there a single case, but a whole class of problems for which mechanism is unnecessary to determine it's ability to work.
3: I do agree that if you do not understand how something is operating you should not pretend to know why it can't.(just makes you look stupid)However that's a strawman argument. I don't pretend to know why it can't work. I presented an argument which restricts the existence of quantum 2LOT violating machines. Unless you assume that Elisha (or some other observation) is irrefutable then my argument stands and must be directly refuted. If you think that some set of observations are irrefutable violations of 2LOT then please provide evidence which demonstrates how it is impossible for any other explanation to exist. Which would seem to make you something of a liar but hey...it's your head screw it up however you see fit.
...and you haven't been asked that.
What you have been asked is to provide an argument that refutes the mathematical proof that demonstrates that you don't need to understand the mechanism of something in order to be deterministically correct that it will not work (note - most other human beings don't require the phrase 'deterministically correct' to convey the same meaning but I continue to use it to avoid you deliberately misinterpreting things).Ever think of being even a little precise? One would think that would be valued in an engineer. The only proof I mentioned in the last post was the Church-Turing thesis (which isn't actually a proof but the portion we're concerned about - the halting problem has been proved.) which smashes your idea that you must know some arbitrary level detail on the mechanism of a thing in order to demonstrate that it can not do what it claims to do. Since we can PROVE unequivocally that no computer program can be written which satisfies the halting problem. So ALL programs which profess to solve it CAN NOT WORK. Clearly then all we need to know about a computer program which is supposed to solve the halting problem is that it's purpose is to solve the halting problem. Thus not only is there a single case, but a whole class of problems for which mechanism is unnecessary to determine it's ability to work.
Can I now assume that you have conceded this point? If not, could you supply an actual ARGUMENT rather than just vague assertions of my being wrong?
Moving along your comment about "observed results" actually doesn't make any sense in that context. Since clearly you have not observed a program determining an arbitrary program's ability to terminate deterministically. Why? Because validation contains the same problem as the problem itself. You can't observe the set of all programs which run forever for any Turing complete language.
So perhaps you mean the results of Elisha's experiment? In which case it's not a "proof" it's my argument which is based on a few proofs and papers. Now if you're saying that Elisha's experiment disproves my argument then you must also believe that there is absolutely no error in your observation or reasoning. However not long ago you said that you appeared to say that you think it's possible for a non-2LOT violating explanation to exist. Since my argument was all about 2LOT violations then the only way Elisha's observations could "disprove" my argument is if the observations are entirely without error. Otherwise the word you are looking for is "constrain" not "disprove". It doesn't constrain my argument very much mind you.
However that's a strawman argument. I don't pretend to know why it can't work. I presented an argument which restricts the existence of quantum 2LOT violating machines. Unless you assume that Elisha (or some other observation) is irrefutable then my argument stands and must be directly refuted. If you think that some set of observations are irrefutable violations of 2LOT then please provide evidence which demonstrates how it is impossible for any other explanation to exist. Which would seem to make you something of a liar but hey...it's your head screw it up however you see fit.
You continue to state off the wall ideas as some fact that is relevant to this theory. Like the computer program crap. Can you write a program to deterministically indicate when a computer program will end, well YES I can. Let me tell you how! Though, I don't see what the Church-Turing thesis has to do with anything.That's because you have less than a 1st year education in computer science (or less than a 1st year memory of one). The halting problem demonstrates that there are problems which are not decidable (or computable) the Church-Turing thesis is a more general statement about any machine.
I will write an emulator that reads all the code and decodes all the instructions and how many clock cycles each instruction takes. As it reads the code it follows all the jumps and interrupts just like it was running (but it's not actually running).However when the emulator is running (which is really no different than the program running *if* you think about it which I guess you claim engineers seldom do) the virtual program counter and registers have to take exactly the same path through the code that the registers that a real processor would. So for programs that run infinitely they too would run infinitely.
When it's finished it will inform you EXACTLY how long it will take to run and EXACTLY when it will end if it will end. Why is that so hard?
So I haven't conceded that point, I just thought it was too boring to waste time answering.Well your answer didn't solve the problem. Now that you see your mistake you probably should start combing through my comments and try to find a way to misinterpret them so that you can justify your misunderstanding of the problem. :-)
You see, your questions are stupid to an engineer who is used to solving problems.Some might say you shouldn't boast until you actually get the question right. Just sayin'
Yes the mathematics can indicate an impossible condition but in reality, there are actual solutions.So far you haven't produced one. Your program can not tell me if a program terminates. Since it will never finish analyzing a program that doesn't end.
Look at hot fusion, mathematics indicate it will work, other problems prevent it from ever working (or at least working to a usable extent)Different thing entirely. As usual you are insanely vague about what you mean but if something is not logically impossible that doesn't mean it's feasible. However you are asserting that something which is logically impossible can still be done.
2LOT has some weak areas that don't seem to hold true on the nano scale environmentYes, that's Philips line. However it's really just a vague assertion...which you are parroting. *rawk*
and the simple valve test indicates this to be one area that should be looked into.You mean any valve test? Including the ones that didn't work? I think what you mean is you interpret some subset of valve-in-an-oven-tests, to be a violation of 2LOT. You dont' seem to provide much justification for this point.
Elisha's experiment is not proof, but it is another indication of an already observed phenomenon.Actually you called it "proof" yourself in your past posts. So which is it?
You seem to like to state that because something has always been that way, it can never change.No, at not point have I stated that something can not change *BY VIRTUE* of it having not changed. Again, learn. to. read.
The truth is the only thing that remains constant is change.Yawn. Another good example of how you, by your own logic shouldn't be listened to. I have made a logical argument based on a few papers and assumptions which were given by Philip. You just made a statement about everything with no evidence to support it. So...considering you said that those who say they know a lot shouldn't be listened to. Who is stating a greater knowledge the person who is saying they know a little bit about a few things which happen to be applicable here (me) OR the person who just made a general statement about everything in the universe (you).
That's because you have less than a 1st year education in computer science (or less than a 1st year memory of one). The halting problem demonstrates that there are problems which are not decidable (or computable) the Church-Turing thesis is a more general statement about any machine.However when the emulator is running (which is really no different than the program running *if* you think about it which I guess you claim engineers seldom do) the virtual program counter and registers have to take exactly the same path through the code that the registers that a real processor would. So for programs that run infinitely they too would run infinitely.
Which if you had been paying attention to the way I defined the problem would have given you a hint to how you have just failed to solve it. Your program can not *determine* if a program ends because an emulator running an endless program never ends. It can't produce output. It can not *TELL* you that a program doesn't end. Well your answer didn't solve the problem. Now that you see your mistake you probably should start combing through my comments and try to find a way to misinterpret them so that you can justify your misunderstanding of the problem. :-)
Your first line of defense is probably to claim that you didn't know the program needed to produce output (although how you would imagine that based on the idea that the program is supposed to determine something or tell you something is probably just some inadequacy with your English)
Even if you can argue some misinterpretation of the problem it doesn't really matter. Since the overarching question is: "Do you need to know the mechanism of something to determine that it doesn't work?" and clearly you don't need to know that. If it helps you see your problem then add the clause "in a finite amount of time" but really, in English that would be covered by the term "determine" or "tell".
Some might say you shouldn't boast until you actually get the question right. Just sayin'So far you haven't produced one. Your program can not tell me if a program terminates. Since it will never finish analyzing a program that doesn't end.
So are you now conceding the point? Or do you want to come up with another solution that doesn't work. :)
Different thing entirely. As usual you are insanely vague about what you mean but if something is not logically impossible that doesn't mean it's feasible. However you are asserting that something which is logically impossible can still be done. Yes, that's Philips line. However it's really just a vague assertion...which you are parroting. *rawk* You mean any valve test? Including the ones that didn't work? I think what you mean is you interpret some subset of valve-in-an-oven-tests, to be a violation of 2LOT. You dont' seem to provide much justification for this point.Actually you called it "proof" yourself in your past posts. So which is it?
Anyway you've kind of chosen your words poorly...again. "another indication" is stupid and vague. The only thing that matters is if Elisha's experiment tells us more than we already know. Even if you assume it is replicating Philip's experiment it doesn't mean it accomplishes this goal. Elisha's experiment is of poor quality. Therefore it does not necessarily add any information to the system and by virtue of that it does not increase the probability (or confidence) in the result. A course in Bayesian statistics would help you understand this.
No, at not point have I stated that something can not change *BY VIRTUE* of it having not changed. Again, learn. to. read.
Yawn. Another good example of how you, by your own logic shouldn't be listened to. I have made a logical argument based on a few papers and assumptions which were given by Philip. You just made a statement about everything with no evidence to support it. So...considering you said that those who say they know a lot shouldn't be listened to. Who is stating a greater knowledge the person who is saying they know a little bit about a few things which happen to be applicable here (me) OR the person who just made a general statement about everything in the universe (you).
Yes, you do have one thing correct, I had chosen a word wrong, EMULATOR should have been ANALYZER for the computer problem.So your ANALYZER must contain some part that recognizes a loop and then calls a function to determine if the loop ends or not right?
The code ANALYZER will count the clock cycles and will determine an endless loop and will determine end times if possible and never itself be caught in the endless loop because it can determine it was an endless loop by the code.
You must have had NO computer science. Just some trash locked in your head that someone told you.Just answer the question above please.
You seem to think that some all encompassing formula can determine if something can work or not even if you don't understand how it works.Depends on what you mean by "all encompassing" (you're being terribly vague again). The idea that there exists no algorithm to solve some particular, well-defined problem (and by extension no device can be built which solves said problem) isn't any different than saying there exists no integer which satisfies 2 * X = 3. If that's "all-encompassing" then you are, of course wrong. If it's not "all-encompassing", then neither is the halting problem.
The very fact that your formula exists is in itself proof that it is wrong!Which formula? You are so incredibly vague you can't even say that. Do you mean my logical argument against Philip's nonsense or do you mean the proof of the halting problem. Please provide a formal logical argument if you want to disprove something (in the strong math sense of the term)
So just when you thought you had this all figured out, you were just blinding yourself to look one level higher. (common problem with egocentric people)So again, I've asserted a few things about math which have been proved (in the strong math sense not the weak lumen sense) and you just asserted something about every person on earth (and possibly in the universe). Math is arguably a smaller field than the sum of human behavior. So again aren't you, by your own logic the more egotistical of the two of us? Just sayin'
So your ANALYZER must contain some part that recognizes a loop and then calls a function to determine if the loop ends or not right?Just answer the question above please.Depends on what you mean by "all encompassing" (you're being terribly vague again). The idea that there exists no algorithm to solve some particular, well-defined problem (and by extension no device can be built which solves said problem) isn't any different than saying there exists no integer which satisfies 2 * X = 3. If that's "all-encompassing" then you are, of course wrong. If it's not "all-encompassing", then neither is the halting problem. Which formula? You are so incredibly vague you can't even say that. Do you mean my logical argument against Philip's nonsense or do you mean the proof of the halting problem. Please provide a formal logical argument if you want to disprove something (in the strong math sense of the term)
So again, I've asserted a few things about math which have been proved (in the strong math sense not the weak lumen sense) and you just asserted something about every person on earth (and possibly in the universe). Math is arguably a smaller field than the sum of human behavior. So again aren't you, by your own logic the more egotistical of the two of us? Just sayin'
The computer halting problem is simply crap from the past. It's not difficult at all to write a program to load another program and step through it calculating the results of any operation before it does the operation.I notice that you haven't answered my question about if your program recognizes that a loop exists and then calls code to determine if the loop ends or not. Perhaps you see how it traps you?
I don't know why you insist on believing this to be an impossible taskSo far you haven't shown a way to accomplish it. Also the math says it can't be done but hey why not make Computer Science history right here and now?
or why you consider this important.Really? It's only been explained at least a dozen times. Once you understand that you can prove that no algorithm exists to accomplish a task then you also have to concede that you can tell if something will work or not without knowing some arbitrary level of detail on it's mechanism. Once you concede that then we've dismissed with your so-far only stated objection to why my argument for Philip's nonsense.
It's TOTALLY possible today. It may have had some value when a computer was a box of mechanical levers, but I see no problem today where computer programs are run under supervisory control programs or even operating systems.So you're saying that a hypervisor or operating system can determine if any program will terminate or not. Can you give me an example of how it does this? A hypervisor is really no different than an emulator which you appeared to agree couldn't solve the halting problem - which is why you switched to your ANALYZER argument.
The term was "egocentric" and is why you failed to comment on the fact that you view everything from yourself outward and never see a larger view.I don't know what you mean (because you're being imprecise) by "view everything from yourself outward" or "never see a larger view" at least with respect to finding a solution to the halting problem. If you mean you can write programs to solve a DIFFERENT problem other than the halting problem but one which might equal or greater value to someone. Well duh! That's no different than saying that video games don't solve the halting problem. Many people consider them more valuable than solving the halting problem. However that is, of course not the question I asked nor the argument I'm asserting.
Do you need to know the mechanism to know if something can work? The real answer is YES, or you wouldn't need to ask the question.So if someone gave you a machine and said that it:
You could open at least one eye and think for yourself and in the end, well, you would probably still fail.So far, all you've done is argue from anonymous authority That is you cry and whine that something doesn't work but you still can't give a real argument.
Don't even get on me about math, I have done so much math over the years that it became possible to calculate trig functions in my head and then it developed to simply logical guess based on years of calculation.So? Ever think of using a calculator? Calculation is part of math but math is so much more than calculation.
I now call it baseball engineering along the same line as an outfielder running to catch a ball. Does the outfielder need to calculate the angle and speed of the ball with a parabolic curve to know where it will fall?What does this have to do with solving the halting problem correctly and deterministically for any program? If someone is learning through experience then their "output" is not deterministic (if it was, they couldn't learn).
Of course not, he simply knows about where it will fall from years of experience.
I notice that you haven't answered my question about if your program recognizes that a loop exists and then calls code to determine if the loop ends or not. Perhaps you see how it traps you?
What you're describing (very imprecisely) appears to be interpreting or emulating. Which you appeared to understand from your earlier posting that it could not solve the halting problem. Do you concede that point or do you think an application which does not terminate on an interpreter or emulator would terminate on it's own?So far you haven't shown a way to accomplish it. Also the math says it can't be done but hey why not make Computer Science history right here and now?Really? It's only been explained at least a dozen times. Once you understand that you can prove that no algorithm exists to accomplish a task then you also have to concede that you can tell if something will work or not without knowing some arbitrary level of detail on it's mechanism. Once you concede that then we've dismissed with your so-far only stated objection to why my argument for Philip's nonsense.So you're saying that a hypervisor or operating system can determine if any program will terminate or not. Can you give me an example of how it does this? A hypervisor is really no different than an emulator which you appeared to agree couldn't solve the halting problem - which is why you switched to your ANALYZER argument.I don't know what you mean (because you're being imprecise) by "view everything from yourself outward" or "never see a larger view" at least with respect to finding a solution to the halting problem. If you mean you can write programs to solve a DIFFERENT problem other than the halting problem but one which might equal or greater value to someone. Well duh! That's no different than saying that video games don't solve the halting problem. Many people consider them more valuable than solving the halting problem. However that is, of course not the question I asked nor the argument I'm asserting.
So if someone gave you a machine and said that it:
i) always outputs an integer
ii) always accepts as input any algebraic equation with one unknown
iii) always returns the correct result
Do you think you could type in "X * 2 = 3" and it would give you a correct integer value for X? If not then haven't you just deterministically and correctly stated that the machine would not work - that is it would not function the way it was defined - even though you have no idea at all what is inside? Or do you need to know what is inside to know that there is no integer that satisfies X for X * 2 = 3?So far, all you've done is argue from anonymous authority That is you cry and whine that something doesn't work but you still can't give a real argument.So? Ever think of using a calculator? Calculation is part of math but math is so much more than calculation.What does this have to do with solving the halting problem correctly and deterministically for any program? If someone is learning through experience then their "output" is not deterministic (if it was, they couldn't learn).
I see from your remark that computer language is something foreign to you. So after you do about 8 years of assembly language programming on three different CPU's, you just come right back here and set me straight, OKWell that was easy. I've done assembly language programming since I was 14. At various points in time I've written code for: 65/68xx, 68xxx, x86 and ARM. Sorry to disappoint.
As far as the math, wow..... you can dictate conditions and make a formula that can't work because of them.Then you concede the point that you don't need to know the mechanism of a device to determine that it does not work. I didn't tell you how the machine worked but somehow you knew that it "can't work". Right there You said it. You lose!
I notice yet again...that you haven't answered my question concerning your ANALYZER program: Does it recognize that a loop exists in the code it's analyzing and then call a function (or execute other code) to determine if the loop ends or not? Are you going to answer this? Or do you concede the point that you can't write a program which solves the halting problem?
Well that was easy. I've done assembly language programming since I was 14. At various points in time I've written code for: 65/68xx, 68xxx, x86 and ARM. Sorry to disappoint.
Then you concede the point that you don't need to know the mechanism of a device to determine that it does not work. I didn't tell you how the machine worked but somehow you knew that it "can't work". Right there You said it. You lose!
Quick! Make up a vague and contradictory statement about the "real world". That should make you feel better.
then run each instructionHow is that different from an emulator?
You got to be kidding me, I can think of at least 3 ways and they would all workSo far you haven't shown even ONE solution to the halting problem...now that doesn't seem to stop you from bragging that it is easy and obvious to solve but bragging does seem easier than actually doing anything.
Oh gee I didn't answer the kindergarten math question, that must mean I admit to somethingYawn, perhaps you need to be less emotional about this. Either you could tell that the machine I described would not work or you could not. You seemed to be able to tell that it could not work. It seems easy to prove that it could not work. Yet, I did not detail it's internal mechanism to you.
You have convinced yourself you live in a world of can't do,What I said about being less emotional applies here too. I simply acknowledge that there exists a set of tasks which can not be done. These are exceptionally valuable because they can tell you when one approach to something is futile and thus steer you into more productive ways of accomplishing a task.
I know for sure you must be divorcedBecause that's not a personal attack. ROFL.
Vague, vague, vague, vague. Did you major in vagueness? Is that some subspecialty of engineering these days?How is that different from an emulator?
Do you or do you not concede that an emulator which runs a program would not terminate by virtue of the instructions it is emulating if it was running a program that does not terminate? If so then do you also concede that an emulator can not solve your problem for an arbitrary program? If not why - please give considerable detail.
Seriously I've asked you a number of simple and straight-forward questions and you do anything but answer them. Are you so terrified of being wrong? (which is understandable considering the incredible amount of emotion you put into your groundless assertion).So far you haven't shown even ONE solution to the halting problem...now that doesn't seem to stop you from bragging that it is easy and obvious to solve but bragging does seem easier than actually doing anything.Yawn, perhaps you need to be less emotional about this. Either you could tell that the machine I described would not work or you could not. You seemed to be able to tell that it could not work. It seems easy to prove that it could not work. Yet, I did not detail it's internal mechanism to you.
So from there you have two choices....live in a world where you can't know that there is no integer X which satisfies X * 3 = 2 unless you know the mechanism of the machine being employed to solve it OR you believe that you do not need to know the mechanism of a machine to determine that it can not work. QED MoFo. :)
What I said about being less emotional applies here too. I simply acknowledge that there exists a very valuable set of tasks which can not be done. These are exceptionally valuable because they can tell you when one approach to something is futile and thus steer you into more productive ways of accomplishing a task.
Because that's not a personal attack. ROFL.
Meaning that it will not succumb to the hangup or loops or other procedures that you claim will halt the program. The fact is the program will not halt and if it did it's only the program and not the emulator because it read ahead and understood it would halt.So it detects that a loop exists and calls code to determine if the loop will halt? I have asked you this question many, many, many times.
You read the next instruction and calculate the clock cycles the instruction will take, then you push the current location to the stack and read them back and save the current address, then set the interrupt controller to interrupt the CPU after these clock cycles. Now no matter what the next instruction does, the CPU will return the control back to the supervisor program that is running. No lockups, no lost loops no divide by zero errors , NO PROBLEM, at this time you can check to see if the program counter is advancing and continue if it is.Cart before the horse. So you have some hardware to initiate a timed non-maskable interrupt. However all that lets you do is alter the path of execution. You still haven't detected if the program will run infinitely or not. So this would be valuable only if you had already solved the problem...which you haven't.
You run the code through a decompiler and save the instructions, now the program can run under an interpreter that can test for endless loops or errors and never actually run the code.Interpreter, decompiler, hypervisor - it doesn't matter. That still doesn't solve the problem since you still have to - in your words no less - test for endless loops. Testing for endless loops *IS* the problem. You can't embed the same problem in your solution and call it solved. You might as well say that you can create a machine that turn a penny into infinite energy by simply placing infinite energy inside a penny vending machine.
Oh, yes you have been a programmer since 14.I've written assembly code since I was 14. I've written code for computers since I was 12. Initially on an HP 9830A on optical cards.
So it detects that a loop exists and calls code to determine if the loop will halt. I have asked you this question many, many, many times.
Cart before the horse. So you have some hardware to initiate a non-maskable interrupt. However all that lets you do is alter the path of execution. You still haven't detected if the program will run infinitely or not. So this would be valuable only if you had already solved the problem...which you haven't.
Interpreter, decompiler, hypervisor - it doesn't matter. That still doesn't solve the problem since you still have to - in your words no less - test for endless loops. Testing for endless loops *IS* the problem. You can't embed the same problem in your solution and call it solved. You might as well say that you can create a machine that turn a penny into infinite energy by simply placing infinite energy inside a penny vending machine.
I've written assembly code since I was 14. I've written code for computers since I was 12.
That's why I say it can be done today.Are you saying that it couldn't be done on a CPU lacking a privileged mode? (e.g. Rings 0,1,2 on the x86)
Are you saying that it couldn't be done on a CPU lacking a privileged mode? (e.g. Rings 0,1,2 on the x86)
On other CPUs it would be dependent on their specific resources, interrupts, timers, range of calls and jumps and other available external hardware.Please provide a set of minimal constraints for a CPU which would make it certain that the halting problem can not be solved on it.
Well that was fun...I wonder if lumen has conceded the point yet? I wonder if he realizes he's trapped yet? or that his stated algorithm for detecting infinite loops doesn't meet our requirements? Which is another way of saying that is to say it doesn't work! I hope I'm not 15 like lumen said, otherwise that would be pretty humiliating for a 30 year old engineer/programmer to be schooled by a 15 year old.
If anyone else doesn't understand where lumen is wrong, or wants to pick up the argument where lumen left off then feel free to post.
Well that was fun...I wonder if lumen has conceded the point yet? I wonder if he realizes he's trapped yet? or that his stated algorithm for detecting infinite loops doesn't meet our requirements? Which is another way of saying that is to say it doesn't work! I hope I'm not 15 like lumen said, otherwise that would be pretty humiliating for a 30 year old engineer/programmer to be schooled by a 15 year old.
If anyone else doesn't understand where lumen is wrong, or wants to pick up the argument where lumen left off then feel free to post.
What makes you think I left off, SOME of us actually have a life outside of here.So do I but considering your confidence in your solution (having a privileged execution ring allows you to solve the halting problem) it should be the most trivial thing in the world to tell me what features you need to remove. Assuming you're right, which you aren't :)
I can only define the minimum requirements that cause your halting program theory to FAIL, That is, the minimum requirements of the CPU that would allow a supervisory program to monitor ANY arbitrary program you run and determine if it ends, does not end, gives time to end and never halts the CPU.What? ROFL. If that is the minimum requirements to fail then - by DEFINITION - removing ANYTHING ELSE would mean that it would succeed. Otherwise if you can remove something and it can still fail then it isn't the MINIMUM requirements. Is logic not taught to engineers either?
This it totally achievable with the new CPUs todayNope, but I'll crush your argument once you answer my question.
but the theory fails to include self induced external events by the CPU which cause the theory to fail.So in other words a CPU without any timers, privileged mode or access to external circuitry except memory and the ability to load the program for analysis and the ability to tell you if the program will halt. Can't solve the halting problem right? If not, then list the self-induced EXTERNAL events (which is pathetically poorly defined btw) which are possible in this configuration.
So do I but considering your confidence in your solution (having a privileged execution ring allows you to solve the halting problem) it should be the most trivial thing in the world to tell me what features you need to remove. Assuming you're right, which you aren't :)What? ROFL. If that is the minimum requirements to fail then - by DEFINITION - removing ANYTHING ELSE would mean that it would succeed. Otherwise if you can remove something and it can still fail then it isn't the MINIMUM requirements. Is logic not taught to engineers either?
Seriously you are so amazingly and blindly overconfident that a privileged instruction mode (i.e. Ring 0) solves the halting problem BUT you can't say for certain that an 8 bit CPU with no access to external special hardware or internal timers isn't able to do it? A while ago you seemed confident that the halting problem was true for computers of the past. However now you're not so sure. ROFL.Nope, but I'll crush your argument once you answer my question.So in other words a computer without any timers, privileged mode or access to external circuitry except memory and the ability to load the program for analysis and the ability to tell you if the program will halt. Can't solve the halting problem right? If not, then list the self-induced EXTERNAL events (which is pathetically poorly defined btw) which are possible in this configuration.
I'm sure you'll take your time answering because you feel the trap closing. In the meantime perhaps Bruce_TPU will post more pictures so that he feels at least tangentially involved in a discussion that is miles over his head.
The only thing I'm trying to avoid is writing a program that proves you wrong because it's a waste of my time when I know it can be done!What? Nobody asked you to...what I have asked you about four times now...is for an answer to some exceptionally simple questions. Of course if you are going to cower away and not answer my questions. Then of course I can't crush your argument. After all even Ali can't win a fight with an opponent who keeps finding excuses from stepping into the ring
I am sure that this entire "halting program theory" could have been proven wrong with the first CPU with a watchdog timer, vectored interrupts and sufficient memory to run the analytical code.Again, please say that you are certain that a CPU with no watchdog timer, no vectored interrupts can't solve it and your argument will be dust in about two steps but if you are afraid of learning you're wrong then...
I think it's all a waste of time, the theory is obsolete, you just need to wake up and get over it.Look, it's simple answer my questions and I destroy your ridiculous moronic and egotistical thinking on the subject. That is all you really have to lose here. If solving the problem is as easy as you say (several quotes of yours say it's easy) then you've probably already spent enough time to implement the solution. So time is not the issue.
If you want to try it yourself, just install some good debugging software on windows xp and run some arbitrary code. You can see it does not halt the CPU, you can break into it any time and see what it's doing, you can even violate the "halting program theory" yourself!Nope, that doesn't do it. Again please answer the question. I do your posts infinitely more courtesy in responding to them than you do mine.
What? Nobody asked you to...what I have asked you about four times now...is for an answer to some exceptionally simple questions. Of course if you are going to cower away and not answer my questions. Then of course I can't crush your argument. After all even Ali can't win a fight with an opponent who keeps finding excuses from stepping into the ring
Up to you if you want to learn something that, if we are to believe your posts. You think is highly valuable (since the degree of confidence you have in the antithesis of something determines the value of learning you're wrong)Again, please say that you are certain that a CPU with no watchdog timer, no vectored interrupts can't solve it and your argument will be dust in about two steps but if you are afraid of learning you're wrong then...
It's amazing how much help I've given you with this. I've provided something like four different situations in which all you have to do is say: "Yes" or "No, but it would be yes if we changed X". Dumb or lazy either isn't very impressive.Look, it's simple answer my questions and I destroy your ridiculous moronic and egotistical thinking on the subject. That is all you really have to lose here. If solving the problem is as easy as you say (several quotes of yours say it's easy) then you've probably already spent enough time to implement the solution. So time is not the issue.Nope, that doesn't do it. Again please answer the question. I do your posts infinitely more courtesy in responding to them than you do mine.
While you're spending time trying to think up ways to weasel out of answering my questions. Perhaps Bruce_TPU can post some more pictures so again he can feel like he's contributing to something he couldn't understand even with subtitles.
Note by "about two steps": I mean including all your foot-dragging and whining is part of a single step.
*Yawn* Seemingly you're getting off on dragging your heels, or cowering or whatever you're doing If you're lacking attention or something at home I promise to give you as much as I was giving you before but for the sake of actually giving your ego it's much needed trim. Please answer the question:
So in other words a CPU without any timers, privileged mode or access to external circuitry except memory and the ability to load the program for analysis and the ability to tell you if the program will halt. Can't solve the halting problem right? If not, then list the self-induced EXTERNAL events (which is pathetically poorly defined btw) which are possible in this configuration.
Now, you admit that your theory has limited boundaries and you need me to fall into the area that works for you?Dude, you are the one who said that the halting problem was only an issue on old machines - not me - seriously get yourself checked out. Similarly YOU said it was obsolete - generally in English that implies that it at one time served a useful purpose anyway the point of all this discussion over hardware was simply positioning you for the kill.
Ok, Ill say I can do it on any CPU as long as I have enough memory for my control program.Excellent. Then it can work on a machine with no privileged mode right? So your control program is essentially an interpreter right? I look forward to kicking your teeth in (metaphorically).
This halting theory sounds like bad programming practice to begin with. If there is no program there is no halting theory. If your going to have this problem with a program that does this why even bother writing it in the first place?Agreed, if a program is impossible to write - you shouldn't write it :) This conversation between lumen and myself is that he doesn't yet realize that the program can not be written (and that is part of a larger argument in which lumen believes that the only way you can say if something will not work is if you understand it's operation to some level of detail.)
If your working with unknown data sets take a different approach. Like genetic algorithm/neural networks to approximate a best match formula from your test data then work backwards from there. See if it matches with reality.You almost have it. If for some reason you really needed to determine if a program would terminate or not. You need to change, not your algorithm (all algorithms which satisfy our original requirements for determinism will fail) but your requirements. For example, you could say "I'd like to know if a program of 2 instructions or less will terminate". Clearly such a program, on modern machines can be written.
I was having the same thought as DTB, in that such a program could allow code to run but never hang the CPU and still run up to any point where the problem would exist in the code.It's amazing how poor the average computer programmers knowledge is of computer science is (this means you lumen). I feel like a law should be passed or something. :)
It's amazing how poor the average computer programmers knowledge is of computer science is (this means you lumen). I feel like a law should be passed or something. :)
Anyway there's nothing to freak out about...if no algorithm exists to solve the halting problem it doesn't matter if you attempt to generate it by a genetic process or by thinking yourself or by getting a chicken to peck at the keyboard - there is no workable code because there is no algorithm for it to implement. Maybe if you had a program which asked people to pray to Allah (swt) for each program's potential termination status and then reported it. :)
Anyway, again you have an ultra-simple question in front of you. It concerns running your "control program" on a CPU without a privileged mode. So maybe you'll stop dragging your feet and answer it. Instead of inventing new ways to confuse yourself.
Are you looking for help on how to do this or are you just convinced that it's not possible?I'm looking for you to answer the question instead of just running away all the time. You are the biggest intellectual coward I have ever met. You call me all sorts of names, constantly assert that you are absolutely right with no possibility of doubt at all...and you won't answer a tiny question about the subject you assert is so correct and in an area you assert you know so much about. A question that would be trivial to anyone who is as confident as you claim to be. Trivial for someone who KNOWS the problem is so easily solved. Minuscule to someone who sees the problem so clearly.
I'm looking for you to answer the question instead of just running away all the time. You are the biggest intellectual coward I have ever met. You call me all sorts of names, constantly assert that you are absolutely right with no possibility of doubt at all...and you won't answer a tiny question about the subject you assert is so correct and in an area you assert you know so much about. A question that would be trivial to anyone who is as confident as you claim to be. Trivial for someone who KNOWS the problem is so easily solved. Minuscule to someone who sees the problem so clearly.An emulator or interpreter can not work because they only execute the code the same as the CPU would and is therefore prone to the same problems.
Here it is again:
According to you a program which solves the halting problem can be implemented on any CPU. Thus on a CPU without any privilege mode or any interrupts the only way you can run your control program is by having it act like an interpreter right? Your program picks up an instruction and it's operands and then updates memory locations accordingly. Right?
Is that not how the program would have to run on a machine without any privileged mode or any interrupts?
A simple "yes" or "no, and here's why" will do....
D'you think you can manage that? or are you really enjoying my attentions so much that you need to drag things on and on and on and on? I'm flattered at having captured the heart of one so dim. Alas! lumen - I'm happily married. :)
An emulator or interpreter can not work because they only execute the code the same as the CPU would and is therefore prone to the same problems.*sigh* Well this should be fun....
Now I know that you know something about programming, but I feel you are lacking on low level assembly programming and hardware interfaces.No, this is actually one of those cases where you're so stupid you only think the other person doesn't understand. I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time it's happened to you although it may be the first time someone has pointed it out.
So let me ask you a question.I'll answer, on the condition you answer the question I just asked above in bold clearly and unambiguously.
If you run a segment of code through the CPU and it completes, then could you assume the same code will always complete every time it's run?If by "complete" you mean the code halts then no way.
*sigh* Well this should be fun....
So again, given that your control program is acting like your debugger and stepping through each byte, word, instruction and making your checks that your debugger would have. Then if a debugger can solve the halting problem by making checks then does it not stand to reason that a byte-code interpreter like the one described here solves the halting problem in effectively the same way as a Ring 0, Debugger, etc.. does?I
Yes exactly the same except that the code and registers and stack are examined BEFORE it is executed, and it only executes this one instruction before returning control to the controller/interpreter.So you're agreeing that this byte-code interpreter solves the halting problem - that is when fed a program in byte-code it will always terminate and just before doing so it will always produce a correct output telling you if the byte-code submitted to it as input will terminate or not. Also you believe that this is analogous to the way all your other solutions work.
This will allow ANY pile of garbage to run through the CPU doing whatever to memory or outputs along with jumps and calls or anything that happens, and still remain under control of the "control/interpreter"
Also because the program counter and memory writes can be recorded, near endless loops are possible as long as something is changing.
Or maybe tell us all how this is relevant to the quenco chip theory that you keep avoiding!Please use English that makes sense. I'm not avoiding talking about quenco at all. In fact the very last time you asked this question I gave you an answer. That said my answer hasn't changed, go back and read my post...like you almost never do.
So you're agreeing that this byte-code interpreter solves the halting problem - that is when fed a program in byte-code it will always terminate and just before doing so it will always produce a correct output telling you if the byte-code submitted to it as input will terminate or not. Also you believe that this is analogous to the way all your other solutions work.
Again a "yes" or "no, and here's why" here would be helpful...
Please use English that makes sense. I'm not avoiding talking about quenco at all. In fact the very last time you asked this question I gave you an answer. That said my answer hasn't changed, go back and read my post...like you almost never do.
Ok, yes, this will work. It will tell you if it terminated by itself or had to be terminated from endless loop.Likewise, it makes no difference if we treat the interpreter like a function. Lets call it WillThisEnd() and say it takes as input two parameters. A pointer to the byte-code and another pointer to the input the byte-coded program uses. So you could run a piece of byte-code through your interpreter like this:
Likewise, it makes no difference if we treat the interpreter like a function. Lets call it WillThisEnd() and say it takes as input two parameters. A pointer to the byte-code and another pointer to the input the byte-coded program uses. So you could run a piece of byte-code through your interpreter like this:
WillThisEnd(program,data)
Where program is a pointer to the bytecode and data is a pointer to the input data. In terms of output let's say the function returns 'true' if the program terminates and 'false' if the program does not terminate.
This doesn't significantly change the situation right?
This does change the situation, and though the arbitrary program will be executed (one instruction at a time) on the actual CPU, the outcome of each instruction was already predetermined.Well first I'd like to offer my condolences for the recent and severe head trauma you suffered yesterday..as that's probably the most likely reason for your posting.
This changes the situation because the arbitrary program is not considered a program, but data to the preservation program
Well first I'd like to offer my condolences for the recent and severe head trauma you suffered yesterday..as that's probably the most likely reason for your posting.
A few notes: Please only use one term to refer to the thing being described. The byte-code interpreter is the thing being discussed. Don't call it five different names. Second don't anthropomorphize, "considered" is not a instruction on this processor. There is no language construct which "considers" anything.
All I've suggested and you somehow, through a huge amount of effort got confused over....is that the byte-code interpreter - is a program and for the purposes of clarity - can be called with parameters. If it couldn't then one wonders how you expected it to ininterpret with any byte-coded program. The byte-code interpreter must somehow FIND the byte-code of the program we wish for it to interpret. So at some point it must, somewhere, at some time have an address of the byte-code being executed. Even if it simply has this stored on the stack. Remember you said this runs on ANY CPU AT ALL and the one were discussing has no interrupts. So in order for your byte-code interpreter to actually do anything. It at least has to know where the byte-code it's interpreting is.
Now think again, does adding four or five instructions (the call overhead) to your program radically alter it?
It can indeed be setup exactly as you stated.No not really - again I stress that reading is important and you should try taking the job more seriously at some point in your life. I'm not really talking about multiple processes. Just that the code for the byte-code interpreter can be called as a function.
It can be called as a sub function by passing parameters ( a pointer to the data) and the interpreter can read the data and operate on it.
The view you are taking is a view of another sub process running under control of yet another process, but it would make no difference.
I was viewing it as a much smaller CPU with the code interpreter in bank switched shadowed ROM, to give the arbitrary program code all the resources of the CPU, but either way the safety of the interpreter can still be maintained.Needless detail. From the start we have been talking about a program which can determine if an arbitrary program will terminate. Clearly the program which determines of an arbitrary program will terminate will consume memory.
Usually in these smaller CPUs, the execution start point is simply a predetermined point in memory where the program is loaded.Depends Again you're being vague, do you mean the power on execution point? In some CPU's that might be a fixed point or a semi-static point stored in an eeprom, on general purpose CPUS it's more frequently a fixed vector i.e. 6502 ($FFFE-$FFFF), 8086 ($FFFF:0000), 68000 ($0) on more modern x86 PCs the BIOS takes care of the boot into real-mode at $FFFF:0000 and then sets up protected mode for the OS.
I changed the term of the interpreter because you seem to want to consider this interpreter program just as any normal interpreter, and that cannot do the task because a simple interpreter does nothing more than run a program. (offers no control over the programs action or inaction)Spoken like someone who's never written an interpreter. Kind of sad if you ask me; 30 years of programming and you've never implemented an entire language. Most interpreters do not simply run a program. Interpreters have to interface with the operating system, allocate memory, perform bounds checking, type checking and sometimes task switching. Before you go nuts again, I'll just point out that I'm not saying your interpreter must do these things but rather I'm illustrating that interpreters, as a rule offer control over the program's action.
No not really - again I stress that reading is important and you should try taking the job more seriously at some point in your life. I'm not really talking about multiple processes. Just that the code for the byte-code interpreter can be called as a function.
So now you agree that I can call:
WillThisEnd(program,data)
Since the data, is a pointer to a series of bytes and as you said your byte-code interpreter will "allow ANY pile of garbage to run through the CPU doing whatever to memory" we can pass the same pointer to both parameters without changing how well your program predicts termination.
e.g.:
{
data = program;
WillThisEnd(program,data)
}
Will tell you if "program" will end when it is fed with it's own binary image as "data".
"It can be called as a sub function by passing parameters ( a pointer to the data) and the interpreter can read the data and operate on it."A sub-function of what? The function WillThisEnd() - at this point has no parent process. It's running on the CPU. It's *is* your interpreter.
Yes you can, and it will report that it will not end because it will not end without something ending it.Weird statement, you don't know what either "program" or "data" is. For all you know "program" points to code like this:
A sub-function of what? The function WillThisEnd() - at this point has no parent process. It's running on the CPU. It's *is* your interpreter.
Calling WillThisEnd(program,data) - interprets the "program" using "data", determines if it ends and returns either 'true' or 'false' respectively.
We have, at this point not discussed any other software running on this machine. So there's nothing for this to be a sub-function of. Please refrain from making up any new terms, it's a stupid thing to do in a discussion where clarity is important.Weird statement, you don't know what either "program" or "data" is. For all you know "program" points to code like this:
{
return;
}
Which terminates regardless of the input data.
So once you sort that out in your head. Then you should see it's possible that we could write the following function - which is running on the CPU and not a sub-function of anything at all (bizarre that I need to specify that!) -
The function will be called WillThisEndOnSelf(), it will take one parameter,, a pointer to a program as input and it's structure will be something like:
function WillThisEndOnSelf(program) {
if WillThisEnd(program, program) == 'true'
while(1);
else
return;
}
All this does is determines if "program" will end and if it does then loop infinitely otherwise it exits normally.
Simple right?
So what's the result of executing the following? (on the CPU, not through the interpreter)
WillThisEndOnSelf(WillThisEndOnSelf);
The result would be "true" the program would finish.Considering that the only element in this example which returns with 'true' or 'false' is WillThisEnd() I'll assume that's what you're talking about.
Considering that the only element in this example which returns with 'true' or 'false' is WillThisEnd() I'll assume that's what you're talking about.
In which case...you just admitted your interpreter doesn't work.
If WillThisEnd(WillThisEndOnSelf,WillThisEndOnSelf) returns true. It's clear from the logic of WillThisEndOnSelf() that actually the program does not terminate. Thus WillThisEnd() is not responding with the correct answer. So you should go fix your code.
If you do and now with your fixed code WillThisEnd(WillThisEndOnSelf,WillThisEndOnSelf) returns false. It's clear from the logic of WillThisEndOnSelf() that it actually does terminate. Thus WillThisEnd is not responding with the correct answer. So you should go fix your code.
If you do and now with your fixed code WillThisEnd(WillThisEndOnSelf,WillThisEndOnSelf) does not return with either 'true' or 'false' then it has failed to solve the problem.
We have covered every possible output of WillThisEnd() which you agreed is equivalent to your interpreter. Each of it's outputs is utterly wrong in this case. Thus it can not satisfy the requirements of the halting problem.
Yawn...this was about as challenging as playing naughts and crosses with my son.
If I may be so bold and point out that your mistake was to treat this like a technical problem. It isn't one. Essentially this is no different than the "algebra box" problem I gave you earlier. Even you appeared to admit that the box could not operate as described (and you didn't even know what was inside the box!). Understanding this proof, or any proof is no different than that.
Yet the paradox you claim is a problem, is not a problem.Yeah, my son thinks he can win tic-tac-toe as well...
I understood this to be what you were trying to use as some kind of proof that it could not work and that's why the parameters are passed by copy. You see each instance is separate and will end. When it is running itself, it is running a copy of itself that will indeed end.Wow if they give out Oscars for vagueness you would win hands down! So WillThisEnd(program,data) copies the pointers? Copies the program and data? Calls Allah (swt) and asks him? Really I've never met someone who adds terms, changes terms and tries so very hard NOT to explain what they're talking about.
But go ahead and and claim whatever you want, It's what I expected anyway.How about you first make an argument. All I see here is you claiming victory and then sweeping the details under the rug.
Yeah, my son thinks he can win tic-tac-toe as well...Wow if they give out Oscars for vagueness you would win hands down! So WillThisEnd(program,data) copies the pointers? Copies the program and data? Calls Allah (swt) and asks him? Really I've never met someone who adds terms, changes terms and tries so very hard NOT to explain what they're talking about.
I'll make it simple for you:
i) When WillThisEndOnSelf calls WillThisEnd either WillThisEnd returns or it does not. If it does not return you lose.
ii) When WillThisEnd returns. The value it returns with is irrelevant.
iii) In either case the program executes the opposite behavior.
Without altering WillThisEndOnSelf you cant fix this. How about you first make an argument. All I see here is you claiming victory and then sweeping the details under the rug.
"Oh you know, it just works...cause....parameters!"
Meh...or keep hiding your argument.
Are you sure you want to keep insulting me, because my next move is checkmate!*yawn* The effect is better if you just go ahead and checkmate me. Similar to how I smashed your argument when I dropped WillThisEndOnSelf(WillThisEndOnSelf) on your ass.
*yawn* The effect is better if you just go ahead and checkmate me. Similar to how I smashed your argument when I dropped WillThisEndOnSelf(WillThisEndOnSelf) on your ass.
When you attempt your checkmate, please avoid making up new terms, changing the names of old terms, being imprecise, don't introduce terms like "instance" without defining what an "instance" is.
I mean you can (and probably will) break these rules, probably deliberately but the result is just a slower argument.
Were I to guess you still think this is a technology problem rather than a logical one. So you probably think that it's an issue about the program state. It isn't. I hope not, because that's more boring than you're already being (and you're being plenty boring).
Actually no, I made it especially to fit your EXACT rules.Lumen, you haven't been able to understand almost anything I've posted. Changing that now would only be refreshing.
Lumen, you haven't been able to understand almost anything I've posted. Changing that now would only be refreshing.
Really?This is a good example about what I mean concerning your inability to understand what I say.
Are you now wondering where you went wrong?
To fix the problem is very simple, but you don't yet get it?
Do you want clues or should I just come out and solve it for you.
This is a good example about what I mean concerning your inability to understand what I say.
If it finds it is indeed itself, it does not run it, it simply returns TRUE, because it already knows this program ends.
What is "it" in this sentence. You used it six times.
Please replace it with either WillThisEnd() or WillThisEndOnSelf() where applicable.
So now, you already know you lost and at this point hope that I make some mistake so you can carry on. How cool is that!I think I've complained about you being vague enough to make it unsurprising that occasionally you'll cross the line from vague to illucid. In this case you started a post with "it" and then continued to reference "it" (at least seven times) but didn't define what the term was referencing. Perhaps this only happens when you're excited.
If WillThisEnd() finds WillThisEndOnSelf() is indeed itselfEnglish parsing rules still consider this sentence ambiguous. Is "itself" WillThisEnd() or WillThisEndOnSelf().
Why are you still bothering, your king is down!Perhaps you better make a clearer argument before you start jacking yourself off. So far you might as well typed: "it that it which it is part of it and that other it in it"
WillThisEnd(WillThisEndOnSelf(WillThisEnd) )This isn't the code that's causing the problem. Altering my program to make your broken interpreter work properly doesn't solve the halting problem. Not to mention the way you've written this you should see an exception or it shouldn't compile.
I think I've complained about you being vague enough to make it unsurprising that occasionally you'll cross the line from vague to illucid. In this case you started a post with "it" and then continued to reference "it" (at least seven times) but didn't define what the term was referencing. Perhaps this only happens when you're excited.English parsing rules still consider this sentence ambiguous. Is "itself" WillThisEnd() or WillThisEndOnSelf().Perhaps you better make a clearer argument before you start jacking yourself off. So far you might as well typed: "it that it which it is part of it and that other it in it"
Also...This isn't the code that's causing the problem. Altering my program to make your broken interpreter work properly doesn't solve the halting problem. Not to mention the way you've written this you should see an exception or it shouldn't compile.
Oh, but how the arguments are not correct, Oh, It might not even compile, Oh...... Oh.Uh...yeah that's the way it works. I gave an unambiguous piece of pseudo-code and I explained that regardless of how your program processes it - it will always be wrong. So yeah, you are responsible for producing a cogent and clear argument as to where the problem is with my proof. Just saying "It workz bec4uz uf p4ram3ters" doesn't qualify. Perhaps in your engineering school things were different....and more stupid.
Your just trying to put the proof on me to show it works.
WillThisEnd(WillThisEnd) = TrueTo me this says you're *executing* a function with the function pointer to itself as a parameter and assigning the result location the value of "true". If this was any C-like language that would i) not compile because WillThisEnd takes two parameters not just one and ii) Even if you were allowed to do this kind of assignment it wouldn't do anything meaningful. Perhaps you are imagining something like:
This WAS the only case that it could not run, so excluding this single case and providing the correct result DOES SOLVE THE ENTIRE PROBLEM.Dude, your "solution" is "solving" a situation I never gave it. How could it possibly affect my proof. Perhaps you need to go and re-read what I wrote?
Don't ever think you know more than anyone else.I believe there are many people who are smarter than myself. Turing, for one - who wrote the proof that is crushing your argument - once you figure out where the problem actually is of course. Anyway least we can be reasonably sure, in this respect you're definitely dumber than Turing...I mean you didn't even recognize the PROBLEM my program created for your interpreter!
There is always someone that knows more or is faster or is stronger or is better looking. If it's not me, it's someone else.
I tire of this game and I have real work to do todayCome to think of it I also have something more challenging to do...There's a new season of "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic" that I need to get caught up on.
We can play another game again soon.Well in case you're wondering the score is sarkeizen 2 (one point for my correct proof, and another for noticing that your "solution" is not even in the same ballpark), lumen 0. I'm being nice not awarding negative points for wrong answers - some of my profs did that. Perhaps in your school they just gave out happy faces and said "Good Try!"
I'm so lonely! Please give me a hug.Bruce_TPU! I was hoping you would post another picture. It's like a constant affirmation that i) I bother you ii) This conversation is so far out of your league that it would cost you $0.69/min just to dial a clue.
Uh...yeah that's the way it works. I gave an unambiguous piece of pseudo-code and I explained that regardless of how your program processes it - it will always be wrong. So yeah, you are responsible for producing a cogent and clear argument as to where the problem is with my proof. Just saying "It workz bec4uz uf p4ram3ters" doesn't qualify. Perhaps in your engineering school things were different....and more stupid.
As far as compiling, errors etc...I'd simply expect that someone who programmed computers for 30 years to produce C-like syntax that was unambiguous. Again, your school may have had different standards...or none at all.To me this says you're *executing* a function with the function pointer to itself as a parameter and assigning the result location the value of "true". If this was any C-like language that would i) not compile because WillThisEnd takes two parameters not just one and ii) Even if you were allowed to do this kind of assignment it wouldn't do anything meaningful. Perhaps you are imagining something like:
funciton WillThisEnd(program,data) {
if program == WillThisEnd
return 'true';
<insert other code that doesn't work here>
}
So a question - can you point out where I actually call WillThisEnd(WillThisEnd) in my example? If I don't then isn't your example kind of irrelevant.
After all that boasting it seems you didn't even know what the problem I gave you was. That would be sad, if it wasn't at the same time funny.Dude, your "solution" is "solving" a situation I never gave it. How could it possibly affect my proof. Perhaps you need to go and re-read what I wrote?
I believe there are many people who are smarter than myself. For example Turing - who wrote the proof that is crushing your argument - once you figure out where the problem actually is of course. At least we know, in this respect it's definitely not you...you didn't even recognize the PROBLEM my code created for your code!
Like I said, you really don't understand what I'm saying. Perhaps YOU"RE the one who's in such a rush to dismiss something you didn't bother to understand the problem. :)
Come to think of it I also have something more challenging to do...There's a new season of "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic" that I need to get caught up on.
Well in case you're wondering the score is sarkeizen 2 (one point for my correct proof, and another for noticing that your "solution" is not even in the same ballpark), lumen 0 (I'm being nice not awarding negative points for wrong answers - some of my profs did that. Perhaps in your school they just gave out happy faces and said "Good Try!"Bruce_TPU! I was hoping you would post another picture. It's like a constant affirmation that i) I bother you ii) This conversation is so far out of your league that it would cost you $0.69/min just to dial a clue.
Considering that you're advising lumen that I'm not listening to him (even to all evidence suggests the opposite)/ Are you not also implicitly advocating that lumen is correct. ROFL. Perhaps instead of siding with someone because of a mutual enemy or mancrush. You should think about the argument presented and judge for yourself. If you have a counter-argument I'd love to hear it - but mostly because I'd love to crush it.
.*sigh* back to the same thing where you are hiding your argument from me. Never met a more frightened person than lumen.
I only see someone squirming because their proof is now gone.
*sigh* back to the same thing where you are hiding your argument from me. Never met a more frightened person than lumen.*sigh* back to the same thing where you are hiding your argument from yourself. Never met a more fickle person than sarkeizen.
I produced some code which I say breaks your interpreter.
I explained how every output of any interpreter which meets the criteria we agreed on can not work with this code.
You produced code which you say somehow avoids this problem. Right?
Don't you have to run your fix against my code?
Please show that.
HINT: My code was not WillThisEnd(WillThisEnd,WillThisEnd)
- I made that syntactically correct for you since apparently you don't know that a function which requires two parameters won't compile if it's written using only one (in C and C-like languages anyway)
*sigh* back to the same thing where you are hiding your argument from yourself.Dude. Look at the original post. That was not the code that didn't work. You might as well have tested:
If WillThisEnd(WillThisEnd) then print "sarkeizen is an idiot"Uh....I said the code that I gave that doesn't work on your interpreter WAS NOT WillThisEnd(WillThisEnd).
Hey it works! The result is passed back on the stack!
Dude. Look at the original post. That was not the code that didn't work. You might as well have tested:
function lumenJerksHimselfOff(){
static int strokes = 0;
if (strokes++ > 1) {
printf("Oh I'm done\n");
}
}
It has about as much in common with my code as what you just tested.Uh....I said the code that I gave that doesn't work on your interpreter WAS NOT WillThisEnd(WillThisEnd).
So by testing some code that I didn't use in my example. How does that affect my proof?
Please stop avoiding the question. It has been stated clearly and unambiguously man times.
Wait. Are you thinking that the problem I outlined is that the interpreter is being passed as a parameter or something? ROFL. Really? That's your grand argument? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
It doesn't matter what the original code was,It does if whatever you think you did doesn't fix the problem with my code. Or would you disagree?
the problem was fixed by allowing the function to run on itself as I have shownThen simply show it again, using the exact code I gave and answer my questions concerning it's operation..
It does if whatever you think you did doesn't fix the problem with my code. Or would you disagree?Then simply show it again, using the exact code I gave and answer my questions concerning it's operation..
If you can show, exactly - answering all of my questions to the degree of accuracy I ask for - how your change to WillThisEnd() allows my code to run through it correctly under all the conditions I've stipulated in this thread then I'm willing to believe you have a point. However if all you're going to do is whine, shriek, complain, block, avoid and never even once show your work. Well, I think you've conceded my point already.
I admit dealing with someone who is so stupid they can't see the point and so arrogant they refuse to elucidate their own is kind of a unique experience. Perhaps lumen's engineering school was just teaching people to be giant dicks. I mean clearly they weren't teaching math, computer science, programming (he still isn't writing C worth a damn). Maybe this wasn't his specialty? Like perhaps he majored in cardboard box engineering, vinyl siding engineering or perhaps "the little rubber feet on heavy stuff" engineering.
You might need to help me find your"original" code since you flip flopped around so much I thought I was dealing with a carp on the beachWell first thanks for admitting what I've said for about six posts now. You don't have a single half of a clue as to what I'm talking about. Interesting that really didn't seem to get in the way of you being so utterly arrogant that you couldn't believe that you had got it wrong. Post after post after post after post of you going on and on and on about a "solution". When in fact, you didn't even read enough of my posts to even see the problem. Really, if there's someone here with an ego which is enormous to the point of being crippling it's you and this should be a wake-up call....but it probably won't be.
Is this the original or just another tangent?
"WillThisEnd(program,data)
For the "C", you still aren't writing assembler worth a crap.I haven't written any assembler here so that's kind of an empty criticism. C is a useful tool because the syntax is largely settled (unlike say Python), it doesn't differ significantly from architecture to architecture, it allows a fair amount of low level access and it can create pretty complex code with limited library support (as opposed to Java).
Are we concerened with syntax here or if the program concept works.If you had even taken a high-school course in programming you would have known that some of the syntax you used was AMBIGUOUS so while I'm not concerned if something is letter-perfect. If you write utter crap like:
You are just trying to support something you read rather than question if what you read might be wrong.That would be good advice if you also applied it to yourself. This thread is pages and pages and pages of you crooning about how solving the halting problem is so easy....WHEN YOU DIDN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND IT! Sorry the only person not questioning themselves here is you.
Awww...Bruce_TPU needs a hug. Sorry for neglecting you Bruce_TPU you are an important part of the OU community. Where else would people go for vapid chatter? I get that for you, this is like sitting through algebra again or having to sit at the grownup's table during thanksgiving. That can be tough. :(
Does anyone else out there feel like every page of this thread reads like the page before?
Well first thanks for admitting what I've said for about six posts now. You don't have a single half of a clue as to what I'm talking about. Interesting that really didn't seem to get in the way of you being so utterly arrogant that you couldn't believe that you had got it wrong. Post after post after post after post of you going on and on and on about a "solution". When in fact, you didn't even read enough of my posts to even see the problem. Really, if there's someone here with an ego which is enormous to the point of being crippling it's you and this should be a wake-up call....but it probably won't be.
Well moving on...if you had read the posts I made after that I built upon the concept of using WillThisEnd() by creating a new function WillThisEndOnSelf() which takes a single argument which is a pointer to a program. i.e.
function WillThisEndOnSelf(program) {
if ( WillThisEnd(program,program) == 'true' )
while (1);
else
return;
}
All this is, is a function which is run on the CPU - which happens to call WillThisEnd (which is your interpreter). If WillThisEnd returns 'true' then WillThisEndOnSelf goes into an infinite loop. However if WillThisEnd returns 'false' then it terminates normally.
Again if you had actually followed along with the posts and read the words in them you would have seen that my question was. What happens when you run:
WillThisEndOnSelf(WillThisEndOnSelf);
Using your software as "WillThisEnd()"I haven't written any assembler here so that's kind of an empty criticism. C is a useful tool because the syntax is largely settled (unlike say Python), it doesn't differ significantly from architecture to architecture, it allows a fair amount of low level access and it can create pretty complex code with limited library support (as opposed to Java).
The fact that you can't write it, even to the point of realizing that you need to pass as many arguments as your function is defined with is kind of telling. Look at the evidence! You haven't shown very much code of any kind. You don't appear to understand rudimentary computer science. I get that some people are self-taught and primarily "practical" coders and I also get that others are formally taught and generally "theoretical" coders. You seem to suck at both.
Granted I'm looking at a limited sample of what you can do but that's pretty much your own fault as you have worked very hard to avoid showing any code.If you had even taken a high-school course in programming you would have known that some of the syntax you used was AMBIGUOUS so while I'm not concerned if something is letter-perfect. If you write utter crap like:
lumenFunction(lumenFunction) = 4;
Then of course there's a problem. See, "=" is an ASSIGNMENT operator in so many programming languages it's not even funny. So what this line is actually attempting to do is unclear, if it in fact does anything at all. Even this might be tolerable if you would actually ANSWER QUESTIONS about your code but you don't.
So you have provided me with good reason to think you're the biggest fucking loser that has ever sat down at a computer. Capiche?That would be good advice if you also applied it to yourself. This thread is pages and pages and pages of you crooning about how solving the halting problem is so easy....WHEN YOU DIDN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND IT! Sorry the only person not questioning themselves here is you.
Also if questioning things is good how come your belief that I didn't question Turing's proof isn't being questioned? My marital status was, according to you unquestionable. I could go on an on how many ridiculous moronic and overly broad things you've asserted without any doubt at all.
The only thing *I've* maintained is that there exists a mathematical PROOF restricting the kinds of programs which can be written. Unlike you, who immediately assumed (and did not question themselves) that whatever the problem is it can't possibly something that can't be done. Unlike you I actually read Turing's paper. I did the proof. What I'm giving you here is an "easy to understand" version and still you're still so stupid that you don't understand it.
I like to think that despite being acerbic I've been pretty patient with your nonsense. Considering that the proof in question has held up to scrutiny for over seventy years. I've let you talk about how easy something is. I've put up with your foot-dragging when answering the most simple and trivial of questions. The only thing I wanted was for you to make your case in a clear an unambiguous manner but when you finally agree to the presuppositions involved with this you didn't even bother to read the post demonstrating the problem and went on to argue something COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.
Really? You think I need to question myself more. That's really what's going through your head?
Will force a false because it's true the program never ends, and in turn the false will end the program.Again terribly vague statements. "force a false" a false what? We don't really know what your code will return because, after all it hasn't been written.
Which is all very clever but does not change the fact that the original function "WillThisEnd(program) returned the correct results.Not in this case it doesn't. You should pay more attention. WillThisEnd() was defined to produce 'true' ONLY WHEN THE PROGRAM IT IS FED TERMINATES and 'false' ONLY WHEN THE PROGRAM IT IS FED DOES NOT.
Again terribly vague statements. "force a false" a false what? We don't really know what your code will return because, after all it hasn't been written.Not in this case it doesn't. You should pay more attention. WillThisEnd() was defined to produce 'true' ONLY WHEN THE PROGRAM IT IS FED TERMINATES and 'false' ONLY WHEN THE PROGRAM IT IS FED DOES NOT.
In this case if WillThisEnd says WillThisEndOnSelf terminates. WillThisEndOnSelf does not terminate. If WillThisEnd says WillThisEndOnSelf does not terminate, then WillThisEndOnSelf terminates. Hence WillThisEndOnSelf(WillThisEndOnSelf) can never get a correct answer when it calls WillThisEnd(WillThisEndOnSelf,WillThisEndOnSelf). Thus, if even once case will cause any implementation of WillThisEnd to fail then no program can be written to cover all cases. QED.
Concede yet?
But again, it's based on what WillThisEnd returns.And in one case WillThisEnd is always, always, always, always wrong. Must be hard on the ego to see something no engineer or even all engineers or even all engineers past and future can ever fix.
This is not any different than simply changing the the results of WillThisEnd.You should provide the context for that because it doesn't make any sense just sitting out on it's own.
If not (WillThisEnd(program) == true);
And in one case WillThisEnd is always, always, always, always wrong. Must be hard on the ego to see something no engineer or even all engineers or even all engineers past and future can ever fix.Utterly wrong. WillThisEndOnSelf is accepting exactly the output that WillThisEnd sends it. However WillThisEnd just happens to always be wrong in this case.
(Huckleberry hound is for Bruce_TPU)
WillThisEnd(program); must return the correct result in order for WillThisEndOnSelf to return an incorrect response.You are making a reifying error.
You are making a reifying error.
All that's required for my position to be correct is for any WillThisEnd(program,data) to fail in one circumstance.
If WillThisEnd is presumed perfect - it fails on WillThisEndOnSelf and I'm right.
If WillThisEnd is presumed imperfect - then it fails all on it's own and I'm right.
Since perfect and not perfect cover every possible circumstance. I am right.
Believe it or not in the past 70 years mathematicians have thought about this stuff. Even if engineers couldn't.
So you are you ready to concede?
(Fred and Barney for Bruce_TPU)
The fact is that "WillThisEnd(program,data)" did not fail. It did return the correct result.Nope. Under the *assumption* it produces the correct result it fails to do so. Different thing.
Just because "WillThisEndOnSelf " failed sometime after, has nothing to do with "WillThisEnd(program,data)"Squirm, squirm, squirm. You are equivocating...typical. What stage of Kübler-Ross are you in now?
If not (WillThisEnd(program,data)); is the same thing.Sorry, put your (written like a pre-schooler) snippet in a function otherwise it's irrelevant.
Not in any useful sense of the term "failure". The only thing that could fail was WillThisEnd and it did.
The very last error that occured was the failure of "WillThisEndOnSelf" not "WillThisEnd(program,data)".
Well I'm very happy you are correct.As usual you're being so vague and stupid and whiny. The execution path of WillThisEndOnSelf() changes on the basis of the output of WillThisEnd() but the entire function of WillThisEnd() is to determine the execution path of the program. One you realize this the idea that WillThisEnd() can not be written to work 100% correctly should not come as too much of a surprise.
Now that I know that I can simply change the output of something and this changes the results
I am going to add another zero on the top of that 100W light bulb and it should change the output to 1000WArgument by false analogy. The entire function of the light bulb is not to mimic the behavior which is written on it's side.
As usual you're being so vague and stupid and whiny. The execution path of WillThisEndOnSelf() changes on the basis of the output of WillThisEnd() but the function of WillThisEnd() is to determine the execution path of the program. The idea that WillThisEnd() can not be written 100% correctly should not come as too much of a surprise.Argument by false analogy. The function of the light bulb is not to mimic the behavior which is written on it's side.
In addition to sucking at math and programming. Arguing isn't something you do well either. At LEAST know the formal and informal logical flaws.
It's also amusing that what you're doing is arguing against "proof by contradiction' but maybe that's just something written in a book and the rest of us really need to "think for ourselves" instead of using LOGIC. ROFL.
@Bruce_TPU - I've attached a colouring page for you. If you don't mind can you use it for your next original creation? You are such a creative young man and I think it's important that you express yourself.
So now, if you construct it:Is the call to WillThisEnd() called from inside WillThisEndOnSelf() still failing the stated requirements? Yep.
"WillThisEnd(WillThisEndOnSelf(WillThisEndOnSelf(program))"
Yawn. I love how this is annoying you. Also I figured you would have gotten here sooner.Is the call to WillThisEnd() called from inside WillThisEndOnSelf() still failing the stated requirements? Yep.
Then this argument fails the deterministic requirement of the halting problem. That is it doesn't ALWAYS, predict the correct answer. The idea that a program can *sometimes* correctly predict the output of a program isn't exactly news.
Again, you agreed to this. Sorry if you're wrong.
Anything else?
Bruce_TPU I've attached another place you can showcase your talent.
To argue with a looser that does not understand his own code, is totally a waste of my time.Actually, I misread...you actually have written a different program. It still doesn't work.
Actually, I misread...you actually have written a different program. It still doesn't work.It's perfectly possible to parse a few lines of code to check for some infinite loop. If you are talking about large programs, then it is perfectly possible to parse a few more lines of code to check for some infinite loop. If it's possible for one, then it is possible for the other.
WillThisEnd(WillThisEndOnSelf(WillThisEndOnSelf)))
(I assumed the extra use of "program" was an error because it means you've written something rather different than what I wrote. Since you've refused to learn proper C syntax and like a huge douche refuse to answer questions about your code properly I'm forced to make guesses like this)
So what you wrote will call the inner function first WillThisEndOnSelf with a parameter of WillThisEndOnSelf. It in turn calls WillThisEnd(WillThisEndOnSelf,WillThisEndOnSelf). In which case WillThisEndOnSelf() will either terminate or go into an infinite loop - whatever is the opposite of WillThisEnd's prediction. So it still fails horribly there.
If it does exit it returns an undefined value (there is no return value for WillThisEndOnSelf - so assuming you could get this to compile you would get garbage). You would then call WillThisEnd(<some garbage pointer>)
Who's the loser here? The guy who can't write C. Perhaps if you told me what you WANT to write. I can give you a hand. Perhaps point you to some beginner pages?
Bruce_TPU - more colouring fun for you!
Actually, I misread...you actually have written a different program. It still doesn't work.
WillThisEnd(WillThisEndOnSelf(WillThisEndOnSelf)))
(I assumed the extra use of "program" was an error because it means you've written something rather different than what I wrote. Since you've refused to learn proper C syntax and like a huge douche refuse to answer questions about your code properly I'm forced to make guesses like this)
So what you wrote will call the inner function first WillThisEndOnSelf with a parameter of WillThisEndOnSelf. It in turn calls WillThisEnd(WillThisEndOnSelf,WillThisEndOnSelf). In which case WillThisEndOnSelf() will either terminate or go into an infinite loop - whatever is the opposite of WillThisEnd's prediction. So it still fails horribly there.
If it does exit it returns an undefined value (there is no return value for WillThisEndOnSelf - so assuming you could get this to compile you would get garbage). You would then call WillThisEnd(<some garbage pointer>)
Who's the loser here? The guy who can't write C. Perhaps if you told me what you WANT to write. I can give you a hand. Perhaps point you to some beginner pages?
Bruce_TPU - more colouring fun for you!
It's perfectly possible to parse a few lines of code to check for some infinite loop. If you are talking about large programs, then it is perfectly possible to parse a few more lines of code to check for some infinite loop. If it's possible for one, then it is possible for the other.You can check for some specific cases sure, or some restricted environments but you can not determinstically check for all cases.
Are you a web developer?Is that supposed to be an insult?
You can check for some specific cases sure, or some restricted environments but you can not determinstically check for all cases.Could you define "deterministically" as it applies to a human thought process vs this program you are thinking about?
Is that supposed to be an insult?Why would it be? Do you feel insulted by the context? Why?
"WillThisEnd()" does not make a prediction.*yawn* Miriam-Webster says a prediction is "to declare or indicate in advance". Did WillThisEndOnSelf() end before WillThisEnd(WillThisEndOnSelf,WillThisEndOnSelf) returned? Nope. So how is this not declaring something in advance and therefore a prediction?
Again, you are looking out of the scope of the function.As usual you're providing no detail here like a douche. The fact remains that if we use the definition of the problem set out at the beginning which you eagerly agreed to because you thought you were sooooooooooooo much smarter than everyone who has studied computer science....ever (or whatever) the program meets the requirements. If you want to CHANGE the requirements and limit the program,data or environment in some way. Then there are ways to write code to do this. You did say "any garbage" even "random bytes". Clearly you understood what you were getting into and you were WRONG!
But it is your story, so whatever you say.It's simply true. If you want to live in denial go ahead. If you have a counter-argument that isn't stupid please share it....or is it time for you to concede the point?
You see everyone is a welder, but not everyone can weld.And we're back to you delivering personal slights by obtuse metaphor you must be feeling happier now that you have convinced yourself that this is all just trickery by me. Even though every one of your attempted counter arguments died based on assumptions that you approved.
Could you define "deterministically" as it applies to a human thought process vs this program you are thinking about?I haven't the slightest idea what you mean. I'll try to define "deterministically" as best as I can thought.
Why would it be?Well you made a comment stating my assertion was wrong and followed up with a comment about some alleged characteristic. It's not entirely unreasonable to suspect that you were implying a correlation between my profession and the alleged wrongness of my assertion.
I haven't the slightest idea what you mean. I'll try to define "deterministically" as best as I can thought.Your statement was that it is impossible to write a program to determine whether another, abitrary program, will end or not. Considering that we are starting with a single set of values and no chance of anything changing, this would be an achievable, but time consuming project.
Deterministically means that the program needs to be able to produce the same output all the time regardless of the input or system state. for example lumen, the human douche says his program will produce a correct result with my code if he could change when it is being called. This is a violation of determinism.
Well you made a comment stating my assertion was wrong and followed up with a comment about some alleged characteristic. It's not entirely unreasonable to suspect that you were implying a correlation between my profession and the alleged wrongness of my assertion.I noticed that you guys were speaking freely in Javascriptesque whilst coveting C, that's all. Are you a web developer?
Your statement was that it is impossible to write a program to determine whether another, abitrary program, will end or not. Considering that we are starting with a single set of values and no chance of anything changing, this would be an achievable, but time consuming project.What does a single set of values mean? What does "no chance of changing" mean? I may not have stated it clearly but this is for all programs and all possible input streams.
I noticed that you guys were speaking freely in Javascriptesque whilst coveting C, that's all. Are you a web developer?No I'm not a web developer. Good point! I just used "function" to designate a function for clarity I suppose and of course I wasn't typing anything or using address operators. So I can see how this looks like (or is) Javascript. I don't really do much JS but about two years ago I started writing a CS textbook based around Javascript as a teaching tool. I thought it was novel and useful by virtue of JS having some more obscure features like closures (which PHP only got recently) as well as a loose object model and that it's available just about everywhere.
Well, my code would decompile the program first and trace the variables used for the exit point(s) logic before running the same number of instances as there are input conditions (yes -> (possibly) trillions), resulting in an enormously juicy pot of data if there are no exits within a predetermined time frame. The data would show whether there is a trend towards exit conditions or not in any of the instances or whether limits or repetition will preclude an exit from occuring.
IMHO you could probably do as good a job simulating as decompiling and tracing. However if you're going to cut your code analysis off at a predetermined time then the only thing you can state ended deterministically would be code that ended in that time Everything beyond that would be probabilistic. The "trending" sounds a little like you've simply embedded the same halting problem inside your code.I disagree. Being able to trace and (rev 0.1 here) add debugging to the program gives far more scope for determining the outcome than a single boolean value.
If you looked at the example I gave it was code that passed a pointer to itself to your code midway through executing itself. Then your code returns with an answer, my code sees it and does the opposite. If you say we exit, then we loop forever. If you say we loop forever we exit.I haven't seen your code (link?), but suffice to say my code wouldn't accept your pointer. :)
I haven't seen your code (link?), but suffice to say my code wouldn't accept your pointer. :)How does it accept my program it's supposed to analyse then? It doesn't really matter. If your program is callable and takes my program as a parameter and always returns a result I can always change behavior by looking at this result.
All joking aside, the quenco proposition as described does not require an active sorting mechanism/intelligence.Not all MD devices do.
Well, the result... nay... existance of WillThisEndOnSelf is irrelevant because the magic happens in WillThisEnd. Also the number and format of variables required would be worked out by WillThisEnd so no need to pass anything to it apart from the single argument, the location of the program. And WillThisEnd would do what I outlined above.Sure does. That's exactly what is stated in the spec...just a couple of posts above. You implicitly agreed to it by using my terms.
So it wouldn't really matter what I returned from WillThisEnd to your piece of code
Well.... when one man reads implicit agreement where another wrote explicit clarificationNot really. I stated clearly what the thing was...and then you changed the environment. Remember your program has to work with an arbitrary program. So this is more about you being a dick than actually being clever.
All you've done is replace a clear channel with a noisy one.Oh crap, my remaining irony gland has just imploded.
Oh crap, my remaining irony gland has just imploded.*yawn* You were just trolling? Well that's disappointing. I was kind of interested to see what wrong idea you'd come up with next.
*yawn* You were just trolling? Well that's disappointing. I was kind of interested to see what wrong idea you'd come up with next.There's an infinite loop if ever I saw one. Au revoir.
There's an infinite loop if ever I saw one. Au revoir.But...but....but...you seemed to imply that this was so easy. Why is it all of a sudden not easy?
I think the length of posts on the subject of a computer program on this quentron thread set an overunity record for trolling.Trolling is what Bruce_TPU does - posts deliberately provocative messages which are otherwise vacuous and you're right he should stop.
It is disrespectful to the members of Overunity and I ask Sarkeizen to please desist from making any more posts off topic.
I think the length of posts on the subject of a computer program on this quentron thread set an overunity record for trolling.I could not agree more doublehelix! Enough is enough.
It is disrespectful to the members of Overunity and I ask Sarkeizen to please desist from making any more posts off topic.
Trolling is what Bruce_TPU does - posts deliberately provocative messages which are otherwise vacuous and you're right he should stop.There is disagreement amongst computer scientists as to the validity of the proof (and others) you worship so. One major point being that in writing a program to detect whether another one would halt, the inability to handle the proof would be an easily rectified corner case bug.... !IsProgramSelf.... which then could have lead on to an vaguely interesting theoretical discussion*. One perhaps in which the bounds of the proposition could be debated insofar as the usefulness of the application as it relates to the real-world. Whether precluding well founded probability in favour of deterministic dogma is either necessary or desirable. After all, if 1 in every 101000 results are wrong... what impact does that really have, other than in the bounds of a purely theoretical discussion?
I came up with a logical argument as to why Philip's idea can not work. Drawing on information theory and complexity theory. Lumen believed that I don't understand Philip's design which I agreed with because Phillip has produced nothing in terms of a design that shows how 2LOT is violated. Lumen then went on to argue that if I don't understand some arbitrary level of detail I can't say that something doesn't work. The foray into an exceptionally well-known road in computer science to disprove Lumen's point is at best a digression.
If Lumen had conceded the point - upon which there is no disagreement among mathematicians (mathematical proofs are often like that) - it would have been a short argument and we could have gone back to talking directly about Quenco. Instead he wheedled and whined and tried to find some silly excuse for not losing and then he left in a huff.
We still can get back to the problem with Philips idea - if you want to concede those points I mentioned.
There is disagreement amongst computer scientists as to the validity of the proof (and others) you worship so.Please provide journal article references. If there is disagreement it's not very widespread.
One major point being that in writing a program to detect whether another one would halt, the inability to handle the proof would be an easily rectified corner case bug.... !IsProgramSelf.... which then could have lead on to an vaguely interesting theoretical discussion*.What? You really should be clearer. It sounds like IsProgramSelf is detecting if the program being fed to WillThisHalt is WillThisHalt i.e. WillThisHalt(WillThisHalt,WillThisHalt) so you could optimize with an: if (program == WillThisHalt). However that's not happening so you're really going to have to explain what the alleged corner case is.
One perhaps in which the bounds of the proposition could be debated insofar as the usefulness of the application as it relates to the real-world. Whether precluding well founded probability in favour of deterministic dogma is either necessary or desirable.Yawn, you're being an idiot. The idea that a deterministic machine can't be built isn't precluding probability at all. Neither intrinsically nor in my own dialogue - I've mentioned a few times in this thread if you change the problem definition you create potential to solve the problem.
After all, if 1 in every 101000 results are wrong... what impact does that really have, other than in the bounds of a purely theoretical discussion?Actually some people think you can do better - that is you can make your bound arbitrarily small. Your ridiculously bad logical error is your presumption that this isn't a theoretical discussion. The point was to illustrate that one can make absolutely true statements about the function of a device without knowing some arbitrary level of detail about it's function. This was a point brought up by lumen - time and time again. At least one simpler counter-argument was brought up but lumen seemed fixated on this one. It seemed to bruise his engineer pride.
And re information/complexity theory as it relates to quenco as described.... irrelevant.Why? Please be detailed.
The real world probability is looking good though.Please give a detailed quantification how this is so.
yes, you may say you tried with the Pi thing, but only a child would embrace a serious want with such insults.Your sentence barely qualifies as English. You seemed to be having trouble with the problem at hand. I asked a few questions. i) If a deterministic algorithm exists - what complexity class would it be? ii) Since you seem to say how utterly easy it is to write the kind of code that I say is impossible. I'd thought I'd give you a chance to do something that's at least hard. Looking at the problem from the other side, if you will.
I could not agree more doublehelix! Enough is enough.From the guy who would post insulting images, to the guy who's talking about math and science.
From the guy who would post insulting images, to the guy who's talking about math and science.
It sounds like IsProgramSelf is detecting if the program being fed to WillThisHalt is WillThisHalt i.e. WillThisHalt(WillThisHalt,WillThisHalt) so you could optimize with an: if (program == WillThisHalt). However that's not happening so you're really going to have to explain what the alleged corner case is.If I need to explain that, you need brain surgery. Case closed.
If I need to explain that, you need brain surgery. Case closed.
sarkeizen was not correct about the MD, so I put little credit in anything else..... well I guess there was nothing else.Good to see you're still bothered by my slamming you down. I see a web page, Philip had one of those too.
I egged him on long enough to show he has no other interest in this channel, except to create a diversion.Willful ignorance must be very relaxing for you. This whole discussion was addressing a claim of yours. Are you saying you concede now? That you actually do think one can make absolutely true statements about the function of a device without knowing it's mechanism to some arbitrary level of detail?
If I need to explain that, you need brain surgery. Case closed.I call shenanagans. Come back when you actually know something.
Probably an implant would work best.The code executes exactly as I've described. You claim to have some contrary idea but you simply will not explain it. I understand being afraid. Once bitchslapped, twice shy.
We both know the programming he has put so much faith in, does not even work and is nothing more than a piece of broken code.
Logically we cannot judge a claim of a violation of the second law on the basis of information theory if that theory maintains itHuh? My idea had three parts. i) Maxwell's demon machines have multiple disproofs - I cited a few. ii) Information theory GENERALIZES 2LOT violations to a particular degree. Philip dismissed this. iii) I claimed that if his system is somehow immune to disproof through information theory. It represents a violation of complexity theory. I gave my argument and cited a paper.
What I will say is that he has distilled 70 years of the Halting Problem down to his little football - even more inadequate in modern terms than the originals - that nobody else is allowed to speak of... let alone play with.Again pretty vague. Ever thought about just coming out with what you're counter-example is? No? I've made it clear at least once that the program I'm offering is a simplification of Turing's proof but if you aren't interested in what I actually say and prefer making up your own ideas...not at lot I can do to stop you
Absolutely great guy if ever anybody needed any artwork levelled to +/- 20 degrees. Cheap too.Must admit I haven't the slightest idea what that means. So that's a "yes" then? You're just making shit up?
Probably an implant would work best.I hate to be a party pooper, but if you are saying that a hang is proof of a function/equation that continues to calculate halting then it is not. What I will say is that he has distilled 70 years of the Halting Problem down to his little football - even more inadequate in modern terms than the originals - that nobody else is allowed to speak of... let alone play with.
We both know the programming he has put so much faith in, does not even work and is nothing more than a piece of broken code.
I have indicated many times it does not work like he's thinking, the total result of running comes down to only an output of:
1:False , (which is correct)
2: Program hangs.
He don't see it because he never wrote any real code before. ( C is not my bag, but even I can C that problem)
From:
http://www.theimagingsource.biz/en/technology/ambientheatelectricity/
QUOTE:
The Imaging Source Technologies
Ambient Heat To Electricity Conversion ...
What I find interesting is that no claims have been made that there has been a $10 experiment that did not produce almost a Volt. Assume that this one claim is true and we have an issue as to explain how you get one volt from the Tube experiment. Why not deal with this?
If an alternative explanation is viewed more likely than it being an effect violating the second law, then it would be on Hardcastle to prove otherwise, but if we fail to find a sound explanation of a Volt we should seek to replicate, is that not a fair approach?
I say that a Volt is an amazing output because it exceeds what I know to be possible with thermocouples, it might be explained by the use of special thermoelectric materials but these are not present in common pentode tubes.
Anyone here have an idea? other than saying it was a measurement error, he must have checked all he could by now to still maintain he and others have found the same results.
You know it's ironic that quenco, as proposed, utilises an unforseen technological leap with respect to Kelvin et al (ie they were entirely unaware that at some point in the future a scale beyond their imagination could trivially, by nature, sort on a particle by particle basis) and Sarky cites a "proof" which doesn't utilise an unforseen technological leap (ie a program can trivially check whether or not it is being fed itself).The idea that you know what you're talking about gets just more and more remote here. I'm not really talking about a program getting fed itself. Nor have you explained why that would be relevant. Turing's proof has nothing to do with the counter-argument I gave for Philip's idea.
He's just a Wikipedia regurgitator.Not really, while the Halting Problem is described on Wikipedia my code doesn't come from there.
Great at looking at/memorising stuffYou realize that's almost a direct proxy for saying I'm intelligent right?
anyone who believes any of this deserves what they get.
Sarky went on and on and on about me being a bad project manager, well since I missed all my stated deadlines that is a sustainable criticism just as soon as he shows me someone that has done the same task better in a year.From outside Philip you've produced nothing. No prototypes, no demos - so from that vantage point most people produce as much in a year. Even if we believe you have what you say you have. Your logic is entirely wrong. The rate of production isn't completely dependent from how production is managed. The point of managing your work is to produce predictable deadlines and outcomes and to communicate them well. This is what you didn't do. You estimated things that I would say anyone who's managed a project would not have. You budgeted no overrun time from where I can see and simply thought that whatever you were doing next would solve your problem. Naive is probably the kindest word for that.
we already found out about 4x more than we all thought, now I can estimate how long the difficult is going to take with greater precision, but the best answer is clearly very Sooooooooooooooooooon.Soon, it what you have been always saying. How is that more precise?
You realize that's almost a direct proxy for saying I'm intelligent right?I am very happy you feel that way. Incidentally, sea lions are great at looking at/memorising stuff and chimps are demonstrably better than humans at some aspects of this little party trick. Feel free to crack open a tin of sardines and give yourself a round of applause.... and please don't feel too jealous of those pesky chimps.
I am very happy you feel that way.It's simply the truth.
I think we all know Snarky or whatever has to be either paid to do his evil or someone who will lose big when Quenco gets rolling since he spends all his time here trying to bash the heck out of Quenco.That's pretty much a false dichotomy. Seriously, do any of you think Philip - who has been ignored by every university he's attempted to contact - has made any enemies? For the last few weeks, I've barely been able to talk about quenco. I've been spending all my time teaching lumen math that was proven over half a century ago. The only thing I've said about Quenco is that assuming it works the way Philip says it does it's a Maxwell's Demon machine. Therefore it's under information theory and considering that Philip's favorite argument is essentially "no it isn't". My counter has been: "If it isn't then it's under complexity theory".
my opinion is just one more of the anonymous people here but I can say from the heart I only desire a better world for everyone. I'm sure Philip and some others here have the same aspiration. It seems obvious others do not....So what's the theory now? People skills determine what's science and what isn't? Thinking something is wrong, because it doesn't make sense from a mathematical point of view means I don't want a better world? Have you ever considered that what Philip produces could easily make the world worse rather than better? Energy is simply the potential to do work it doesn't obey a moral code.
And others would seem to have Aspergers syndrome or some psychological quirk of a very contrary nature.You know turning a psychological disorder which you are not qualified to diagnose (or correct in your diagnosis) into a broad insult is pretty insensitive to people who legitimately suffer from these things.
Hi All,
Thanks for the good wishes, appreciated.
As you probably know we have commenced work on the fabrication of Quenco, it will be completed as soon as the experts have completed all the required steps, they are currently progressing as expected.
The reason for my post today is to draw your attention to a page on my site
http://quentron.com/asymmetrical-demons.html (http://quentron.com/asymmetrical-demons.html)
where I am inviting a debate from professional physicists (professors), I have had a few such experts contact me and I have answered their questions I believe completely, but I would like others to see the debate in the open. I am not looking for comments from people who do not have an expert grasp of thermionics as that would not be productive to the readers. If you know a professor let them know of the debate.
This debate will keep me from getting too anxious while waiting for my flight to Palo Alto (Stanford).
Hello GL,
Any luck with the APM.
Deleted, I understand now.
Very cool. Have you tested the theory?
@GL,
Yes I was addressing you for the previous post. I like the theory.
Stprue,
I have read, and been told, that it is impossible to build a solar panel that can convert IR light to energy directly.
So I did ask myself, why is it possible to make a opto-coupler that uses a IR LED to control an enlarged
base area of a transistor. Surly, the IR LED is is providing enough energy (voltage and current) to the
transistor base to switch on the transistor. This led me to solder the 100 IR LED panel and test the panel
is a dark room with a IR light. My test did show me that it is possible to convert IR light to energy. Now the rest
is just a engineering problem. How do we make a large panel with IR sensitive elements that covers the
correct wavelength (IR light from ambient). One way to do it is building a substrate like Philip will do.
GL.
There will be no further posting here or on the Quentron website until March 10.
I must say that put a big smile on my face ;D .
hi, I know I said I would not post here until March but since there are a number of people getting angry that there are no photos I have received permission to post this image of 9 Quencos under construction on a Si/SiO2 wafer at the SNF dated 12 Feb 2013. Copyright reserved.
Interesting device, but it almost seems that it could be using a radioactive isotope. I can't find additional info on it's operation.
I had a chance to be the participant of NRGLab event that took place at Raffles Hotel Singapore on February 5, 2013. I had doubts about that company and their technology. And had many questions as well. I also saw how the SH Box cell was produced by one of event participants. Now I'm sure that this technology is not a rubbish and moreover that this technology is a sensation! I’m highly interested to be the part of development of this innovation. I feel sorry for the people who write negative comments here without learning any documents that NRGLab have on their website.I've read most of what's on their site and there's only one word "vague". I think it's unlikely that they have anything but since they don't really disclose much in the way of information it's difficult to determine the particular problem.
I’m highly interested to be the part of development of this innovation. I feel sorry for the people who write negative comments here without learning any documents that NRGLab have on their website.No need to feel sorry for them. If the technology is for real we all will benefit from it whether believers or not.
Hi All,
As I understand batch 1 will be finished in a few days, and then we commence producing the commercial batch (the ones we lend out to licencees) with an ETA about mid March.
Phil.
Philip, look at what recently happened to Tesla Model S and the NY Times Magazine, the magazine did an article false, negative to discredit Tesla, sure someone was behind this article, a company or economic sector who feels threatened by the success of the model S.
Do not waste your time with these people, do not answer, ignore them is the best.
Hi All,
More photos of quencos under construction at Stanford this past week have been posted on
www.quentron.com (http://www.quentron.com)
As I understand batch 1 will be finished in a few days, and then we commence producing the commercial batch (the ones we lend out to licencees) with an ETA about mid March.
We will demonstrate the Quencos at the conference but may also do a mini product launch on line if time permits prior to the conference.
I have been invited by a few people to various countires, but before going to Europe I thought I should do a USA demo, I expect to leave USA on 6th April so I will have a week to discuss the quenco with some key people in SF and Silicon valley.
Phil.
Any chance of few bullet points just describing the sequence of events remaining in manufacturing, and then how you intend to handle testing?The remaining events in manufacture could be a secret.
Your stupid point is that if science does not have one in the hand then it cannot be, you should consider the multi billion dollar projects designed to detect exotic particles, or the billions spent by astronomers and cosmologists to prove things.Philip, as usual needs remedial logic. In this case he's making a strawman. Complaining that because Philip doesn't have something does not necessitate that such a thing can not exist but it may mean that such a thing is an open question. This is in opposition only to people who claim 100% confidence. Oh hey, that's you.
and if you had any knowledge and common sense you would have followed the logic from the sebby experimentsAppeal to popularity or anonymous authority. Did anyone ever teach you how to construct an argument?
I get really irritated by people that do not enter the scientific debate but rather attack the person.That doesn't really happen. If you were capable of actually engaging me on a debate. I would grind this point into dust. You can't because you kind of suck at logic.
Do you really think we would spend years and about a million dollars of effort to chase an untested idea?Your problem here is that you failed high-school math. The question is not, for us "Do we think YOU would do this" but rather "Do we think it reasonable for SOMEONE to do this?" and obviously if you had even taken high-school math you would know that it is. I don't know how geophysicists can suck so badly at simple math but there it is.
included lots of theory discussion, invited debatesYour theory page begged the question, you never addressed this even lumen who is constantly tongue-lubricating your ass - agreed with this assessment. You invited a debate for all of a few days before removing the challenge from your site.
So let's, on your say so, call all researchers liars and fools as they pursue outcomes before having them in hand.Another bit of moron or as we say PJH logic. The only way for this to be true is if you are presuming that all research without experimental validation is operating on the same quality of evidence. Clearly this can not be the case. Ergo clearly Philip is wrong.
Such arguments as yours are so counter productive to the advance of science, you would rather all researchers keep secret their beliefs and theories? then how would they get funding, how would they get replication, and how would they get scientific debate.There's a difference between saying that there's a theory and saying you are 100% confident. The former is a statement of fact and the later is the statement of someone who is irrational. The degree of irrationality varies with the quality of the evidence available. Right now there
I am and have been surrounded by experts who have tested and checked my work, they are confident in the outcome, who are you advisors?I've already outlined my argument and so far you've been unable to mount a cogent response.
I don't think you should be so dogmatic about information theory being the downfall of all potential 2nd Law violations.I'm not really being dogmatic. Dogmatic means to assert authority from an unproved assumption. The only assumptions I'm invoking is math. They are only unproved (or more accurately unprovable) in a particularly tenuous sense.
seems to indicate that a system can be designed in such a way that the information required to sort particles by energy state is contained soley in the position of the particle being sorted. It acts as a sort of 'self erasing memory'.Not really. You pointed to a general article describing some history up until Sano's experiment. If this is an example of a 2nd law violation then they really titled their nature article incorrectly.
Thanks again for the updates Philip. It's full Moon so I expect the nonsense from some people will heat up a bit. I still can't imagine why some people would spend so much time here trying to belittle things at this point when they merely need to wait about a month to see positive results or at least it sounds now like things are most likely in place to achieve a public demo and proof of concept. The only reason I see some people spending so much time on these negative postings is they have a stake in the outcome. Quenco success for them may mean a loss in some way for them. At least in the short term. I think Quenco will be a huge gain for everyone in the longer term.
I was recently watching a futuristic sci-fi movie in which a person had a hand held size device they clipped on to a high point in a building and lowered their self down about a hundred feet or so. They then had the device reel them back up to the top. I thought there is no way something that size could have enough power to lift a person's weight that far unless they had an nearly inexhaustible power source. I then thought of Quenco. I realized there are so many sci-fi like things that could become a reality when Quenco gets into full production. It boggles the mind how much this could change our world if it is allowed to be put into use. I still have concerns that the biggest problem yet to be faced is whether this will be allowed to be put into use freely in all sorts of devices.
I see the cell phone industry as being one of the early adapters of this. The cell phone industry has become huge world wide. How much of an advantage will the first cell phones have over their competition when they announce their phone NEVER needs charging and has unlimited talk time with it's permanent battery? IMO that is the industry that will be the best first target market for Quenco.
Sounds familiar, eh? lol
Sounds familiar, eh?It should, it's a thermocouple. What does that have to do with thermionc generation which breaks 2LOT?
No Bruce, you are wrong. You may as well be a million miles off.I'm fairly certain his "sound familiar" statement was a reference to the Matrix movie clips shown on that Fuji site and the fact my name here has Matrix in it or more specifically the concept of using people to generate electricity which is both the main theme in the movie 'Matrix' (taken to an extreme as people were kept in pods and used by machines to generate power for the machines and largely computer controlled world) as well as Fuji's idea for their Fuji film discussed on that page.
The Fuji system uses temperature differences, which is a known and understood process. Philip's system allegedly does not need a temperature difference. This is the key fundamental issue at point for this entire thread and for Philip's proposition.
What are you thinking? We will see what you have to say on April 1st.
I'm fairly certain his "sound familiar" statement was a reference to the Matrix movie clips shown on that Fuji site and the fact my name here has Matrix in it or more specifically the concept of using people to generate electricity which is both the main theme in the movie 'Matrix' (taken to an extreme as people were kept in pods and used by machines to generate power for the machines and largely computer controlled world) as well as Fuji's idea for their Fuji film discussed on that page.LOL I knew you would get it. Yes to all you have written. There is a "race" that is on to figure out a way to "perpetually" (I know some don't like that word, and is why I used it) keep a cell phone charged. I do indeed believe this would be a HUGE market for Phillips device, as a "starting" place. If I had the money, I would buy a license myself, after seeing it work. (Yes I put in that disclaimer. Like Ronald Reagan told the Soviets, "Trust but verify". LOL)
basicly a maxwellian demon isnt required at all to circumvent the second law thermo.just the sophistication of design of the device.the intelligence of design comes from the brain building the thing so the builder is in fact the maxwell demon.we humans are maxwell demons.A prime example of the scientific community that Philip wishes to engage here at OU. Elisha can you tell us how this is Allah's will that Philip's thing works and Bruce you can join the choir for the closing hymn.
Allah's will
Please don't confuse "The Eternal God" with the name of some religion god.Please don't confuse your distinction with a difference.
The way of quenco Work was very well explain by The Inventor Philip.Then show, formally how it breaks 2LOT. Whoops, guess it wasn't so well explained.
A quote from member Giantkiller that seems appropriate here: " Those that can not think for themselves will coagulate into a scab of ridicule against any outside thinking."Those who don't really know what they're talking about often pretend the answer has already been given. Feel free to quote me anytime.
lemmepuddit2uthisway sarkeizen. Heres an experiment that you can do to witness a working device: take 2 thermometers,put one ontop a piece alu foil and put the other ontop a book,put these next to each other anywhere in your room and you will see the thermometer on foil always hotter than the other.a direct contradiction to thermodynamics laws.the 'demon'in this case(foil) requires zero information and zero energy to function.totaly passive(reflects infrared radiation).A fine example of the scientific community Philip means to connect with.
The endless talk on this thread about complexity theory and information theory as proof of the 2nd Law is sillyFirst, let me say that I'm, as ever happy that you can not resist reading me and somewhat ironcally wish you could actually read more than the word "information theory" then revert to your usual bigoted positions.
the fact is that the 2nd law has never been mathematically provedYour opinion here isn't worth much. You are not qualified to pontificate on either subject.
, the 2nd Law's very acceptance is based completely and solely on observationNot true, and this is where you are acting as your usual stupid self. What has been said by myself and not exactly a short list of physicists. Is that some methods of attempting to break 2LOT have been proved mathematically unworkable. Surprising that you can't see the difference. Anyway if one kind of 2LOT violation can be proved unworkable then you are completely wrong about 2LOT being based "completely and solely on observation".
(I think we have now 8 physicists / engineers who are 100% convincedIs it really a good idea to trust anyone who's 100% convinced about anything, especially anything based purely on observation? Like say the "sebby" effect?
and what did it gain the negistors and skeptics?You're going to adopt that term? Seriously?
nothing! They, after all is said and done, share the same planet with the same environmental problems, they watch the same poor millions struggle and starve for lack of cheap power and clean water, they see this planet undergoing massive changes that may threaten the very existence of the human race.Actually being critical, thinking about the ways one could be wrong avoids all sorts of pitfalls. Compare to people like the poster above who thinks putting a thermometer on a piece of tin-foil violates thermodynamics. If we take your advice, broadly we should spend research money on tinfoil generators instead of things that might actually help the problems in this world.
So please, please, please, for just a few more days, will all the big mouths and small brain negistors and skeptics have their final moronic outbursts on the subject by calling me a fool, and idiot, a fraud and a scammer.Didn't you give this speech before?
I also have had partial quenco films made and saw via instruments the quenco effect as predictedThat's great and if true, congratulations and thank you.(if by 'quenco effect' you mean something other than perpetual shifting announcement dates)
Whilst you and others have done what????????????????????????????????Realized that you're probably not correct.
I really do not care for what others failed to do or for what others fail to understand.Except that your machine is the same class of device and if you actually understood what I'm talking about you would see that's enough to say that your machine doesn't work. Again and again and again and again and again. If you can refute my argument please do so. Just saying you are uninterested in it is irrelevant...and stupid.
All the stupid jibes and arguments put forward at this point in time do nothing to change the reality of 13 years of work.So far no reality has been presented.
My next post here will be the single word "Success"But you won't post here unless I've been banned...unless you lied about that?
smashes the law that says you cant concentrate random heat without xtra energy.Entropy is a much better word than "concentrate". Please use standard terminology. Are you saying this would reduce the entropy in a closed system?
yes indeed sarkeizen.spontaneous entropy reduction in a closed systemPlease explain the mechanism.
i used the word 'concentrate'toexplain something poorly?
thers a growing number of physicists,scientists out there questioning the validity of 2LOT.Which, you realize is the metric of morons right?
before i explain the tinfoil experiment.
@sarkeizen.only a moron would complain about the word 'concentrate'.please explain why the word 'concentrate' offends you before i explain the tinfoil experiment.In other words you have no clue. Thanks for playing.
@sarkeizen.i disagree.the word concentrate is good enough coz the tinfoil concentrates the heat rays on its focal point like a curved mirror.the concentration of heat on the focal point will be higher than any other point in the room,always,thus toasting your thermometer.
@sarkeizen.i disagree.the word concentrate is good enoughNo, you are simply and completely incorrect.
@sarkeizen i,l use a difrent word to flatter youSince the 2LOT is about entropy, how about you use the word "entropy"?
I gave it a fair bit of time (as I always do with free energy claims to catch up with their announcements in reality, although so far that time has been infinite) and timed it well as the last official entry was 'success tomorrow'. 'Jam tomorrow' has pretty much been the signature of this area across the board, and although it's tomorrow here already there's still a few hours left if it's in the US so won't pee on your hopes prematurely.Actually on the Moletrap place he frequents Philip said 11:30 am. Also while I don't know Stanford intimately I'd be surprised if you can work on their equipment to all hours.
As I have witnessed enough genuine claims of specific details from reliable sources to be not just open minded in this field but extremely positiveWhat does that mean? I mean we don't have free energy right now right? So why doesn't that make you re-evaluate your terms (i.e. how can we consistently have genuine claims from reliable sources concerning free energy and not have free energy).
assume whenever a politician makes a specific promise it will never happen, but not a businessman.Philip is a poor manager. I'm glad someone else realizes this.
@sarkeizen.we can use any word you want,it wont change the fact that the thermometer gets hotter than any point in the room thus proving beyond all doubt a perpetual motion numero duo.the entropy of the system decreases spontaneously.i suggest you try this experimentI can't do a useful version of this experiment (probably neither can you). So how about you explain how you would set up a system that would clearly and unambiguously violate 2LOT.
@sarkeizen.we can use any word you want,it wont change the fact that the thermometer gets hotter than any point in the room thus proving beyond all doubt a perpetual motion numero duo.the entropy of the system decreases spontaneously.i suggest you try this experiment
@tagor.true yes but if you had taken care to read my last msg properly you would see that im talkin about the FOCAL POINT of a curved piece of tinfoil.the thermometer is precisely on that point,above the foil.its gona get hotter.@sarkeizen i,l use a difrent word to flatter you.do you agree that heat-rays will be focused at the FOCAL POINT of a curved mirror by the curved mirror in a isothermal room.if not why not.
@tagor the tinfoil experiment proves that you can raise the temperature of something with no effort,fuel,electricity or sun.Done in an isothermal environment maybe. Have you done it in an isothermal environment?
@sarkeizen ok lets examine the voltaic pileNo, let's finish talking about your tinfoil. Describe your tinfoil inside a device which violates 2LOT.
@sarkeizen the best way to judge if we have second law buster is if the device does practical work forWrong in every aspect but that's because you're stupid. The best way to judge is if you can control for every significant variable. That's hard to do outside of a laboratory. So the next best thing is a thought experiment.
I have violated the 2nd and others have verified that fact, I also have had partial quenco films made and saw via instruments the quenco effect as predicted
What you call history of failures I see as an amazing effort by just one person (Moi) to advance a philosophical position to a point where it was tested and found to be correct, to then take that discovery and in just over a year, not only figure out how to make it a viable World changing technology, but to actually do it. Whilst you and others have done what?
@sarkeizen.wrong.the way to judge is if the energy gained is disproportionate to the variablesHow many variables are there at all measurable deltas...whoops you don't know. So again this is inferior to a thought experiment, at least to demonstrate your point.
lets put a thermopile at the focal point of the tinfoil in a average house roomWhy not put it in an isothermal environment. Since this is hypothetical anyway.
Fortunately, this Worldly state of affairs is only
temporary. All will be made good when the
smoke clears...
@giannia.lets simplify the whole issue by asking if a concave mirror will focus and concentrate some light on its focal point in a ideal isothermal box of diffuse light.the answer is yes do you agree?How is that simplifying? Now you've introduced some mysterious light emitter in our opaque, insulated, isothermal box.
@gianna.are you trying to weasel your way out of my ideal box now that i gave it to you?the walls of the box ARE the emitter and receiver man.they are 25 degree c.now i challenge you to tell me why this wont work.
@tagor.coz the mirror focuses light on2 a spot that gets hotter than 25degrees thats why.but sarkeizen and gianna want to delay the most plainly obvious inevitable conclusion mr tagor,that heat can be gathered for free,even in a thought experiment.
Hands on Quenco prototype batch A devices today!
Start batch B (commercial devices) this coming week
(subject to delivery of material / additive from Boston, Ma)
Estimated delivery of batch B devices 27th March
(subject to delivery of material / additive from Boston, Ma)
Quenco
(Quantum Energy Convertor)
I assume the heat just goes into the copper block and is radiated away.
I wonder if a similar device could be developed for a domestic heat pump and what its COP would be?
I was looking forward to the electrical results that were supposed to be posted today, at least before the updates on the main site changed again.
I don't like to start rumors but lets be realistic, Phil is not the type of man who would stay silent, especially in the wake of all this skepticism. if the first batch, which he should have in his hands by now, worked as predicted he wouldn't have waisted a second telling us with a big "told you so" post. At least that's my opinion of his character.
Perhaps the first devices didn't function as predicted or rather as hoped.
I suspect it's more along the lines of him being extremely busy with things that are more important than any 'I told you so' and I don't have that assessment of his character anyway. I'm sure he will let people know of success but I don't see overunity.com as being his top priority at the moment if things have been going well and tests are complete. Just my opinion.... On another possibility I see as being likely things may not be at that point yet. As I've said before it is very common for one to underestimate the time it takes to complete something when it is the first time one is doing that task.
I'll take the article mrsean2k mentioned at the top of the page here as a sort of validation of Quenco but in reverse. Instead of putting in heat (or taking heat from the ambient) and getting out a lot of power you put in power and get massive cooling.
Obviously I would like Phil to prove my assumptions wrong but that's just my personal view from being aware and supportive of Quenco for over a year now. I can bet you all the Euro coins in my wallet that he would have at least updated his website with "first batch produces electricity as expected".
Updates on the site now:
http://quentron.com/index.html (http://quentron.com/index.html)
I guess my premonition was correct this time. However as lumen stated I also appreciate both good and bad news equally over no news at all. This could technically be considered the first analytical and professional attempt at actually making a Quenco device, so the chances of it actually succeeding from the first shot were statistically low. I hope he gets things sorted out correctly for the next batch.
How many times do you read about a new discovery with potential and the time to development is like 5 to 20 years in the future?,How is Philip on the fast track to anything? Philip has produced NOTHING except a web page. He has published no papers, produced no devices, been invited to speak at no conferences (although he has canceled two of his own) and he's been at this at least four years (His Australian Thermionic Generator patents go back to 2009).
This truly is fantastic news. To get around the obvious shorting issue at such small scales is a commendable achievement in itself.It's interesting how much people want to interpret yet another failure to deliver and yet another failed device as a positive thing. <cue anecdotes about Edison et. al.>
It's interesting how much people want to interpret yet another failure to deliver and yet another failed device as a positive thing. <cue anecdotes about Edison et. al.>
After quite a number of posts of "oh if you can just wait until February" and after many moronic sermons on patience. We are objectively in the same spot we were over a year ago. No functioning device and March isn't looking good either.
Again I ask the obvious question, which all but a few are busy rationalizing. At what point do you adjust your odds that Philip will produce anything?
I see it also as a sign of his good character that he is not trying to hide a setback or a failed attempt. He puts it out there for everyone to see. Just one of the reasons I believe in his honesty and that this is certainly no scam.
@hollander.i dont think its improbable physics, for example i have built a type of self-charging capacitor here and designed it specificaly with circumventing the 2lot in mind and its a total success,exceeding my expectations in fact at several milliamps(not microamps) and 1volt per cm2 of paper-thin electrode area.you can repeatedly discharge this thing ad nauseum with absolutely zero reduction in power output.the problem is phil has to expend a huge amount of energy and money for each test run as his system needs to be highly orderly in order to function.
It's interesting how much people want to interpret yet another failure to deliver and yet another failed device as a positive thing.It's more interesting that you don't see being able to produce something a few atoms thick that doesn't short as being worthy of praise. What his team is doing is at the bleeding edge of manufacturing tech and the knowledge gained may well further development of other unrelated/unimagined applications.
It's more interesting that you don't see being able to produce something a few atoms thick that doesn't short as being worthy of praise.Yawn. More of your bluffing, like you did with the termination problem. You've assumed that Philips unqualified statements are a sign of something useful.
What his team is doing is at the bleeding edge of manufacturing techMore bluffing or exaggeration. There's a lab all ready to do what Philip wants to do. That's not really what we call bleeding edge. Now if you had to fabricate equipment just to deposit the layer *that* is closer to what people mean.
and the knowledge gained may well further development of other unrelated/unimagined applications....and it may not. Check and mate. Come back when you have a non-moronic argument.
I look forward to your formal proof of there being an invisible Information Bear sorting out salmon at every leap around the world.I've already stated what my position is and the work I've referenced. If you haven't read it, that's not exactly my problem.
Seems like a good time to bring up this article : http://freeenergytruth.com/pseudoscepticism/+1
..............
Seems like a good time to bring up this article : http://freeenergytruth.com/pseudoscepticism/Why? I mean. Could you be specific instead of just spamming the thread with a lot of talk from a psychic?
Why? I mean. Could you be specific instead of just spamming the thread with a lot of talk from a psychic?
The person promoting the words of psychics.
LOL
who is spamming this thread ?
The person promoting the words of psychics.
You can't deny the truth of the whole article just because of one silly statement quoted from one person in the article.I'm talking about the section on IDP. It's not exactly quoting David Quinne, a self-described psychic so much as plagiarizing him. Including phrases like "In this study" which makes no sense since no study has been referenced yet. Whomever wrote that article copied that part almost word-for-word including the erroneous 1883 date for Barbara & Walters from the online version of his article. In what appears to be the original article from The Skeptic magazine it's 1983.
I like how Philip is updating his web page to keep us up on the events.His latest update (or act of revisionism) is that there will be no updates until his next round of excuses.
It's good to see things moving, whether good or bad.
It seems the majority of the people in cyberspace hope that I fail, rather than hope I succeed.
I am tired of coming to this site to see comments that continually attack me as a person.
I will not post here again as it seems that there is again no moderation against personal attacks.
As I also receive so many nasty comments on the web I will not to share anything more of my work.
It seems the majority of the people in cyberspace hope that I fail, rather than hope I succeed.
trolls will always be trolls they dont do anything, produce anything have no ideas of their own, they just trash other ppl workI don't know what definition of "troll" you're using but from what I see. Mostly people critical of Philip have asked questions that Philip won't answer or won't answer in a useful way ("I don't care" isn't actually responding to a question about say....Information Theory). People critical of Philip here produce a lot, they give you tools to help us all think about what's true and what's not. Since Philip will likely fail to produce what he says he will produce it's these people who are the actual people contributing the most to this thread and the knowledge of the people in it. People like Philip (and others) who simply pontificate are the people who actually contribute the least.
@hollander.thers plenty reasons to hope man.i have myself built a 2lot violating machine and im the most violently skeptic scientist that i know of.
Philip Friend, please be patient and do ignore the negative people, until we get that this forum moderated. or we move to a forum that is moderate. What do you think?Because putting your fingers in your ears is always the right thing to do?
Because putting your fingers in your ears is always the right thing to do?
i was just checking all your previous posts and it seems you only post on this topic, did you just register on the forums to thrash philip work?My definition of work requires one to produce something. So far, what Philip does doesn't qualify.
is there any reason why you stalk this guy? or did you just picked him randomlyPosting on one topic is stalking? Weird (and stupid) definition. I was one of the readers of this site and mildly positive about Philip's work. Then I started poking around and saw exactly how many times Philip has told the same story. Here and elsewhere. It made me realize that considering Philip to be accurate and honest implies that he sucks in a pretty severe and abiding way at doing his job. Which is not a very good sign. I also realized that almost none of Philips arguments hold much water and none of his explanations are very good - his whole "theory" section of his constantly revolving website begs the important question. Even Lumen who has drunk the Philip Kool-Aid many times over agreed with that.. From there I realized there's inverse correlation between people knowing what they are talking about and the degree to which they believe Philip. Not to mention people here who simply embrace irrationality whole hog offering sermons on patience and selfishness or attack it with whines of pseudoskepticism and made up medical disorders.
My definition of work requires one to produce something. So far, what Philip does doesn't qualify.Posting on one topic is stalking? Weird (and stupid) definition. I was one of the readers of this site and mildly positive about Philip's work. Then I started poking around and saw exactly how many times Philip has told the same story. Here and elsewhere. It made me realize that considering Philip to be accurate and honest implies that he sucks in a pretty severe and abiding way at doing his job. Which is not a very good sign. I also realized that almost none of Philips arguments hold much water and none of his explanations are very good - his whole "theory" section of his constantly revolving website begs the important question. Even Lumen who has drunk the Philip Kool-Aid many times over agreed with that.. From there I realized there's inverse correlation between people knowing what they are talking about and the degree to which they believe Philip. Not to mention people here who simply embrace irrationality whole hog offering sermons on patience and selfishness or attack it with whines of pseudoskepticism and made up medical disorders.
200 posts on same topic???It was a bunch of topics. There were several discussions about how lateness affects the probability of delivery. There were some about information theory and then one where I summed up stuff I put in other posts. Nobody seems to have the background to discuss this though. There were discussions on computer science - because Lumen believes that unless you know the mechanism of a device to some arbitrary degree you can't determine if it will or will not function (or if such a thing can be built). This was relevant because Information Theory, Complexity Theory and just about all math says you can do this. There were a bunch of backbiting posts from someone who likes to post purile sayings on pictures because they don't have anything useful to say. Most recently I demonstrated that an article which implied that skepticism is the result of a mental disorder and posted on a number of websites (at least two free energy web sites) plagiarizes an online article which is entirely made up. Two hundred messages across ten or so topics isn't so much. :)
even though i dont have any education in science i always thought that the most basic rule was if you dont suceed you keep on trying and correct the errors until you achieve sucessWhy would you think that would be a basic rule about anything? Is nothing impossible in your world?
@hollander.i cant post a diagram of this high-powered self-charging capacitor as it is not patented yet.this thing is potentialy worth a fortune to the electronics industry(imagine tv remotes that dont need a battery,ever or imagine a torch that you dont have to wind up or shake,ever).any corporations intrested in further research&development can email me mariosguevara@gmail.com
blah blah blahYou have spent an enormous length of time posting in this single thread. A lot of them being the "it won't work and Philip is full of shit" variety.
Quenco.com has been updated again, including a 'theory'-page. A new announcement is scheduled for May. So there is real progress.
BTW. The topic of this thread is 'quentron.com', not 'negistors', 'attacking @sarkeizen' or 'pseudoskepticism' ;D :-\ .
Thanks for clearing that up.
You have made your position clear, yet you keep coming with the personal attacks.You are simply wrong. I'm not attacking Philip personally. Your definition of the term is incorrect.
You are simply wrong. I'm not attacking Philip personally. Your definition of the term is incorrect.Without attacking you personally, you're a disingenuous half-wit.
So Quentron by Philip Hardcastle is the new hot thing? How long has he been dragging this one out for?
We are currently constructing devices (batch B) and expect to complete them in the next 10 days.
I am also going to put forth a theory for why the meetings by invitation only that Phillip talks about never happen. I am guessing that nobody of any significance signs up to attend the meetings. Therefore there is no point in having them and they are silently cancelled by Phillip.That's a terrible theory. They were not intended to be "meetings". End of story.
Honestly, all that Philip would have to do is get a table-top at any high-profile show like CES or PowerGen and show his product. If he had a real product people would go completely nuts and he would get millions of dollars worth of free publicity. However, the same "Catch 22" applies. If you show up at your table-top show with a poster on the wall behind you that says you have a free energy device nobody will pay attention. If you show up at your table-top show with a poster on the wall behind you and WORKING DEVICES to demo to people then you will get millions of dollars worth of free publicity.Duh.
Endless delays without any explanation or a vague explanation coupled with a pitch for a free energy device is a very very bad combination. This is not the same as someone making a regular product and experiencing delays.Lulz. There are explanations for just about every delay - some very specific - so there is no combination to get excited about. This obviously negates your second point. We are not talking about making love heart shaped Kit Kats (for example, in case that is not clear) and the almost inevitable associated manufacturing delays here.
Let's not forget reality guys. The reality is that Philip has consistantly told everybody the reasons (within reason for anybody with half a brain) deadlines were missed. The ONLY thing he is partially guilty of is not appreciating the effect of unknown unknowns on deadlines and not framing his predications with the appropriate legalese. Nearly everyone else on this forum works (or worked (if they ever had)) in a process within established fields where there are virtually NO unknown unknowns to impede a deadline.Not really. Deadlines were announced that were not achievable *even if* the technology worked. Tight deadlines were announced when it was completely unnecessary and deadlines were made when none were needed.
Not really. Deadlines were announced that were not achievable *even if* the technology worked. Tight deadlines were announced when it was completely unnecessary and deadlines were made when none were needed.I'd say that you thinking that this betrays naivety on my part is a compliment. Let's play Spot the Difference...
Thus, there is more than marketing and legality missing here....and I'd say that your assumptions about your development work betray some naivete on your part.
C
Javascript
No, I made the C/Javascript competition up for sarky who can't tell the difference between them. :)
At a guess, you have assumed block-level scope where none exists?
I'd say that you thinking that this betrays naivety on my part is a compliment.Compliment or no. If I was managing the same project. I'd have been more likely to have it done on schedule.
No, I made the C/Javascript competition up for sarky who can't tell the difference between them. :)Except that's not true.
@tk,hey listen,if he got as little as 100microamps then the thing is already worth a good couple of million dollars to certain industries.I have no argument there, as long as it can be shown that those 100 uA are from where he claims.
@tk.i,l give you a nobel prize if you can get a continuous 100micros from ambient sound,vibration,or even radiofrequency.so if he is getting that then it is a 2lot bust already.If pigs had wings, a pilot's licence and take-off clearance.... could they fly?
As for "deadline", it's his timetable. Characterising it as a deadline doesn't make it one, unless you can demonstrate any real consequence or jeopardy as a result of missing it. All a bit meh.One obvious consequence is increasing his already substantial reputation as someone who can't schedule worth anything.
Philip J. Hardcastle is the clown that cried wolf. Even his supporters around here have pretty much fizzled out. The writing was on the wall a long time ago. Better luck in 2014! (Perhaps 2015.)How childish and untrue.
How childish and untrue.
@tk.lol,if you can gather a continuous flow of 100micros from any of the above anywhere in a block of flats then it would make you a comfortably rich man,imagine a led torch with one of those attatched,no dynamo,no battery required,wow.lets see your new mercedez.As a relatively new poster here.... most of your posts being in this thread.... I suppose you can be excused for being so naive.
Of course what actually happened was that information was released on the day it was supposed to be.More correctly what actually happened is that this was one thing in a rather long unbroken string of things that did not happen when scheduled by someone who had virtually no restrictions on setting the schedule.
I can think of several situations where a company would not release test results on schedule, especially with something like this. The politics are not straightforward, even if some people are alleging that the belts and braces tests required are. Even so, the information was as generous as it could have been without any unofficial test results being prematurely announced or just giving the technology away for the sake of a few noisy toddlers. Imagine the tantrums if an incorrect result was released when projected dates cause such hissy fits!Your argument appears to be, "If register can imagine a circumstance - including inventing a political climate - for this that doesn't involve a non-functioning device or an inept person managing things then that is the reasonable conclusion".
I'm looking forward to the results and also any other announcements re the development of this technology....and you will be looking forward for quite some time. 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and now 2013 is whizzing by. All of these years had at least one "it's right around the corner" announcements.
It´s even possible to harvest energy from an intellectual gradient ;-)LOL.... so that's how Stefan stays alive.... he's inserted himself into an intellectual gradient as a dissipative system ala Prigogine, and lives off the flux....
@tk..i doubt that phil will be wearing the quenco under his shoe.and i doubt that he will be bending it,sneezing on it,or slamming a door on it.and i never in the last 5years of playing around with almost every semiconductor that you can think of got more than 3 unstable micros directly from a schottky point contact.if it is due to radio,then it will be fluctuating grosly and useless for a torch.the people that are using radiosmog in their homes are rectifying through a whole bunch of electronics and it will not work in certain areas so im still on for the nobel prize because it must work in ALL areas.
LOL.... so that's how Stefan stays alive.... he's inserted himself into an intellectual gradient as a dissipative system ala Prigogine, and lives off the flux....
:P
@fritz,so true ,im spitting out intellectual gradients with the purpose of making them all confused lol.
2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and now 2013 is whizzing by.It took a while to get working aeroplanes too. I don't know whether you guys dress up in Batman suits, thinking you're saving the world here or something, but people are big enough and ugly enough to make their own decisions without reading constant slating of a man's character, especially when the posts are devoid of the slightest hint of addressing the actual issues raised in each one of the updates.
It took a while to get working aeroplanes too.It's not necessarily about Philp's character, although you really seem to want it to be. It's partially about his ability in scheduling. Either he's good at that or he isn't and the evidence says, that if we assume him to be of good character then he is simply bad at it. This should our inform our expectations on future schedules by Philip.
especially when the posts are devoid of the slightest hint of addressing the actual issues raised in each one of the updates.Your assumption is that there is useful information in Philip's posts. Like I said, if you prefer to believe that the probability of some event prior to some expectation is unchanged after failing to meet some expectation. That's your affair however don't expect everyone else to drink that kool-aid.
As he points out, it's R&D.Not really. There are two reasonably well-used definitions of R&D. One would be the pursuit of basic science. This isn't that. He's not trying to produce a well controlled situation to demonstrate a principle. He's trying to produce a product. Which is closer to the other definition which is product development. Normally product development ends with prototypes and depending on the industry some plan wrt manufacturing. The problem with calling quenco R&D in this sense is that Philip only last year was "just weeks" from selling hearing aid batteries. That's a sellable product, not R&D. So the more accurate statement is that after failing to produce a functioning product Philip has labeled the Quenco R&D.
I am sure you could make an accurate schedule for something like - for example - building a website, because there are no unknown uknowns.Then you've never managed building a website for a client who is allowed to make scope changes.
But yes, I agree with you re scheduling. I actually think it would be better if no dates were announced, or if June 1 is the target, to make it Q1 2014 instead to "under promise and over deliver" as the corporate world a lot of us have worked in would have us say.Rule of thumb:No dates if you don't need them and no dates if you don't know.
But we are not talking about web development, and if Philip was a corporate schmoozer none of us would be talking about this at all, because the info would not have been made public."corporate schmoozer" isn't well defined but Philip has many times, some even in this thread claimed that he would be willing to work with industry and in other cases that he was not capable to disclose things because of various ties.
To make myself clear, I am neither true nor false and not specifically for or against anything other than imbiciles ripping on a guy who is dedicating his life to doing a good thing.If Philip is doing a good thing it's an assumption of yours based on evidence you don't have. The bare facts are either Philip's expectations are not reasonable expectations and therefore affects the suitability of him being in charge of this project, or they are and each failed expectation affects the probability of the outcome.
No false claims of operation have been made. No "investors" have been solicited. It's all been as honest as it gets.Actually you could equally argue - no true claims of operation have been made. Many investors have been solicited (and either are unknown to you or simply didn't think Philip was worth the risk). As I keep saying: If Philip is honest, he is not a good candidate for managing this project. This is not about his character, just his abilities.
To be fair, I am sure you would have been as vocal in ripping the Wright brothers, citing all of the available, flawed Victorian logic regarding size/weight and flight. A time at the infancy of science when scientists believed all sorts of nutty things and all sorts of nutty laws.Nobody is "ripping" Philip. It's just an objective analysis which you don't like.
If I had the time and/or sadness I'd like to use computer science to prove something now known as false as actually being an irrefutable proof, using the information, created by the human imagination (inc accompanying flawed/limited experiments) available at that time.The only argument I've made that references computer science was one that disproves the false assertion that you must know some arbitrary level of detail of a mechanism before you can claim that it can not work as described. You can just as easily make the same argument from simple algebra. The CS argument was just fun because people kept trying to find a loophole.
seemingly logical conclusions are based on human constructs of the information available.So are entirely logical and inescapably correct conclusions. If you have a particular criticism about some particular argument I've made you should state it.
No.Could you be a bit more specific? Philip's site still says they are awaiting the results from Germany. It promises a product available June 1st. Nobody in their right mind would believe that of course but still...this all starts to sound like a "we have it fixed in the next batch" dodge.
Is quentron dead ? they have no new product on their site...1 June has passed long ago...:-/Was that the June 1 this year or last year?
So now there's something up about selling software or something to raise a million dollars by September. Anybody buy that Philip (and who if anyone is working with him) wrote a product that can net 500,000/mo?
As always it's better to make an actual argument rather than vague assertions. Try it sometime - it would be a singular experience for you.
It would be surprising if he'd said that. But he hasn't. Go and read what he actually says.
Ah.... when "soon" no longer works, we always fall back on "already, but suppressed", don't we.Well I can't say I'm not disappointed we don't have anything yet but I'm a patient and realistic person. Rome wasn't built in a day and a planet changing technology won't be either, not even in a year or two probably. I can't see any reason to argue anything at this point. I'll just keep an eye on things. Did you watch the video's ? They really are worth the time spent and it gives you a true perspective on what everyone who wants free energy is up against.
The problem is that it happens without ever having gone through the phase of "look, here it is".
But it does nicely relieve the "inventor" of the necessity actually to show anything. He can just proceed directly to the lecture circuit to talk about what he "could" show you if he wasn't being suppressed.
Check this out:We all know how little power it take to run an LED. Nothing of interest there except a possible future green scientist in the making.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=928_1372494822 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=928_1372494822)
Eat your heart out Phil! lol
Check this out:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=928_1372494822 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=928_1372494822)
Eat your heart out Phil! lol
We are not seeking any donations or investors but have developed a product that will go on sale in July.
Can anybody guess what the product might be?
News
The long awaited funding business launch is here.
Soon has become
0800 GMT on Saturday 13th July
Product will cost $2.
The soon to be announced announcement of the announcement of the new date of the announcement of something will be announced soon.
Stay tuned.
@Poit
sometimes the journey is more important than the destination. In the case of Quentron the journey is not unlike an object in orbit
Just to show we are not prejudice our site covered this to[size=78%]pic (much to my amusement).[/size]Well there is some positive thinking. Seems that would show what your real intentions are. As soon as something really BIG and very Exciting is announced the NEGISTORS are coming out of the woodwork like crazy (I'm not calling you a negistor Mark but I'm surprised at your statement above). Seems all the Negistors are shaking in their boots now. Well only about a week to see what this is about and maybe a short while after that before someone has a product in hand which I think I can assume will demonstrate the theory of Quenco is valid.
So Milehigh and others please come and shoot it down as i have a few points to prove with my fellow writers.
http://revolution-green.com/2013/07/02/quentron-quantum-energy-converter/ (http://revolution-green.com/2013/07/02/quentron-quantum-energy-converter/)
Kind Regards
Mark
I ask all supporters to go to the site and make the small $2 purchase and to then post their experience
phil,s p.r. skills and these volatile skeps,what a mixture.the 2lot has already been smashed by a one professor fu,s demonstrated thermionic device guys.its a matter of enlarging the fu effect and the fu capacitance,thats all.I agree!
I agree!
From my own research on thermonic emission, I consider Philip's work to have a good probability of success at some point.
and,
What's $2.00, if this turns out to be the future or not, next time your standing in front of the gas pump you can imagine the other future.
Well there is some positive thinking. Seems that would show what your real intentions are. As soon as something really BIG and very Exciting is announced the NEGISTORS are coming out of the woodwork like crazy (I'm not calling you a negistor Mark but I'm surprised at your statement above). Seems all the Negistors are shaking in their boots now. Well only about a week to see what this is about and maybe a short while after that before someone has a product in hand which I think I can assume will demonstrate the theory of Quenco is valid.Actually I did not write that article, but agreed it should be published. There is nothing here, promises and predictions have been made for years. I have a number of email from Phil over the years including threats and pleas to help in out with some technology we were working on he badly needed. So basically you are full of BS. Nothing here time to pack up and go.
Probabilities won't heat my hot water.... $2 won't run my telly... standing at the gas pump imagining an imaginary fantasy future thats always just around the corner isn't going to help me drive home........
Get real! This whole thread should be deleted! it is a scam through and through....... I will bet $10,000 that saturday the 13th of July will come and go with NO free energy from this "quentron" BS!
ANY TAKERS?!
Actually I did not write that article, but agreed it should be published. There is nothing here, promises and predictions have been made for years. I have a number of email from Phil over the years including threats and pleas to help in out with some technology we were working on he badly needed. So basically you are full of BS. Nothing here time to pack up and go.Threats from Phil?!! That sounds like BS! But at least you have done one good thing here. After all if Phil was trying to scam everyone why would he be wanting to ask for help with some aspect of his technology. To me that proves he has a sincere desire to get this out and working and into the hands of the world even if he has to share the accomplishment. Thanks for proving Phil is sincere and real in his desire for this tech to become available. Not that I ever had any doubt about that.
As for you profits you should know better than to encourage them.
Ask yourself one question, what is the possible rate of conversion vs area in an ambient environment?
PS the letters he wrote will be published in my book.
Kind Regards
Threats from Phil?!! That sounds like BS! But at least you have done one good thing here. After all if Phil was trying to scam everyone why would he be wanting to ask for help with some aspect of his technology. To me that proves he has a sincere desire to get this out and working and into the hands of the world even if he has to share the accomplishment. Thanks for proving Phil is sincere and real in his desire for this tech to become available. Not that I ever had any doubt about that.I will dig it up tomorrow and publish it, and yes he need stuff we were working on because he had BS himself to a corner. PS In the many years I been posting here all the people like yourself saying Mylow and dozens of others are real, then you go very quiet when your proved wrong. Lets put some real money into escrow on this one winner take all. You up for it ? If you win you can give the money to Phil. If not I can donate it to a third world charity. So where are your balls ?
I will dig it up tomorrow and publish it, and yes he need stuff we were working on because he had BS himself to a corner. PS In the many years I been posting here all the people like yourself saying Mylow and dozens of others are real, then you go very quiet when your proved wrong. Lets put some real money into escrow on this one winner take all. You up for it ? If you win you can give the money to Phil. If not I can donate it to a third world charity. So where are your balls ?
PS I even had my family (that is right young daughters) by the Joe Cell cultists. Believe or you will suffer lol.
PS I can tell you why this one will never work...here is a hint...the exchange rate.
Mark
It's better not to make an argument by throwing together assumptionsAll arguments require assumptions. Everyone has to make decisions under uncertainty. My assumptions, in this case come from Philips words. He needs this million to do batch C. Now either Batch C is not R&D or Philips words are incorrect.
There is no claim he's aiming to make a million dollars by September, except in your head.Is batch C R&D? Every other batch appears to be retroactively classified as R&D. Does he intend to use the money of supporters for something other than batch C? If so isn't that again what we call "bad management"?
All arguments require assumptions. Everyone has to make decisions under uncertainty. My assumptions, in this case come from Philips words. He needs this million to do batch C. Now either Batch C is not R&D or Philips words are incorrect.
Is batch C R&D? Every other batch appears to be retroactively classified as R&D. Does he intend to use the money of supporters for something other than batch C? If so isn't that again what we call "bad management"?
There is no batch A, B, C, or D. The current soon in its fourth iteration is about the Quenco funding business which is totally unrelated to the actual Quenco energy technology.
So there's absolutely no reason to criticize Phil regarding deadlines and management capability.
Your assumptions are derived from your poorly justified interpretation of PJH's words.If you say so.
If you say so.
My interpretation of Philips words is derived primarily from two assumptions. i) Philip is honest and ii) Philip's post is internally consistent. So are you trying to say then that Philip is dishonest and/or is making an internally inconsistent statement?
That's a complex question fallacy. What I posted was my assumptions. What you need to do is demonstrate that my statements are not dependent on these assumptions (or that other significant assumptions are required to reach my conclusions). Instead of simply pretending that you've refuted something...as seems to be your habit.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
That's a complex question fallacy. What I posted was my assumptions. What you need to do is demonstrate that my statements are not dependent on these assumptions (or that other significant assumptions are required to reach my conclusions). Instead of simply pretending that you've refuted something...as seems to be your habit.
What I need to do is nothing of the sort. Just because you assert it, doesn't make it so. A bit like your original conclusion about the rate at which you imagined PJH had to make money to continue.
Some lucky people will know what the product is tomorrow, others will just have to wait three days.
I know what it is and if you have a sense of humour you should like it, well worth $2 in my far from humble opinion..
I feel that Philip is trying to fund this in a way that he keeps control of the outcome, unlike LENR research that has mostly been bought already.
So why have not the venture capitalists, research institutions, industry and angel investors provided funds for this ?
Even LENR has had over 100 million in backing in teh last 10 years
Kind Regards
Mark
What I need to do is nothing of the sort. Just because you assert it, doesn't make it so.You should be looking in the mirror next time you give that advice. ROFL.
We need to draw a million caricatures (we call them buddinks)
every day, so we need up to 50,000 artists (buddinkers).
eish..if only he had one rough prototype..one prototype,,even a shitty one..companies wouldve thrown cash at himHe sure claims to have one, or several or something...I've said it before if Philip is being honest, he's one of the worst managers I've ever seen.
Pets.com was a short-lived online business that sold pet accessories and supplies direct to consumers over the World Wide Web. It launched in August 1998 and went from an IPO on a major stock exchange (the Nasdaq) to liquidation in 268 days.
He sure claims to have one, or several or something...I've said it before if Philip is being honest, he's one of the worst managers I've ever seen.It's not clear WHO is getting the money when I buy something from Amazon either.
As for his current business idea can't say it's the worst business idea in the world but it's:
1) Deceptive - so what's the breakdown here? $1 of every $2 is paid to the artist? That's who exactly right now? Phillip? If there are other people who actually live in the third world it would be nice if they had some pictures and a bio because right now it's not clear WHO is actually getting my money.
Maybe some Amazon employees are involved in Scientology, African charities, yachting, muffin baking or something. They should make that clear on their website.
2) Deceptive - As a responsible person I'd like to know that the other dollar (if that is indeed the breakdown) is going to fund crackpot science. That fact is conspicuously absent from his current site. In fact there appears to be no mention at all of someone PROFITING off the charity of others.
3) Catastrophically overestimates the market for caricatures - Remember when caricaturists would sit in tourist areas and sell their wares? Were any of them two-month millionaires? Remember this money is needed for Philip's firm date of starting R&D in September. Not to mention that in the 70's I remember the price being more than $2.You're catatonic neuron lets you down again. Cumulatively one dollar from those artists going to one source would have amounted to a large chunk. Nobody but you is saying that one artist can draw a million pictures in a couple of months. Not that this is required in any case because the target will be for the total estimated R&D budget, which will not be required on day 1.
Come to think of it wouldn't it be awesome if Philip put a counter on his site showing the number sold. Then we could chart his progress to Batch C. Wouldn't that be phenomenal? "1000 years until Batch C". We could then quantify "soon". Scientists should be notified.I love it when happy sea lions insult me. Have another fish. Ow ow! Such an easy life.
Anyway I'd encourage all the believers here BruceTPU, lumen, that mouthy kid who doesn't know computer science who's nick I'm too lazy to look up, mrsean2k....to pony up their $2 and post Philip's deformation of their natural good looks here.
It's not clear WHO is getting the money when I buy something from Amazon either.It's all about what the product is advertised as. If Amazon made a point of telling you that all of it's books were hand packed by sentient ants. Then that is part of what you are paying for. Budink is advertised, among other things as a means of employing an artist in a poorer country. Hence it is deceptive if the money doesn't go to precisely that. The T&C's for Budink take no measures and provide no requirement of this. Hence it is deceptive.
Nobody but you is saying that one artist can draw a million pictures in a couple of months.Yawn. Please read my post before replying. Nowhere do I state that a single artist is required. Here's hoping that your next statement contains more sense and less nonsense.
Not that this is required in any case because the target will be for the total estimated R&D budget, which will not be required on day 1This is closer to sense (saying "any case" is stupid because there are plenty of cases in nano-fabrication prototyping were you would need a significant portion of that $1M up-front). However it's just a smaller version of the same argument. I doubt Philip is going to make $6000 by September.
I love it when happy sea lions insult me.If you mean the comment about CS. It's actually more of a fact. You were wrong, you tried to cover it up. Just the way it is.
Ow ow!Then I guess I leave you to your delusions. Namely "Phillip isn't being deceptive", "Phillip's device has a reasonable chance of working" and "Philip will be able to fund his research with cartoons".
The site is being improved.So where's your Buddink Trim12? I'd like to see some evidence that even the deluded (you) would pay $2.
could be a rouse.its possible that he was bought out behind the scenes.sumtn doesnt add up here..if he were to sell xxx vids online it would raise the money ten times faster.its a rouseNot sure what could have been bought out, there is nothing of value in the IP and no credible data or results that would stand up to professional scrutiny
So Philip has made almost $250!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!By my estimates Philip has made to-date < $300. As we watch Buddink's social circle slowly exhaust itself.
It looks like the work on quenco, is going to resume.Should we take that any more seriously than claims that the work on Quenco is going to finish? Is there any difference? Other than the frequency of pronouncements by Philip aren't the outputs of "working on Quenco" and "not working on Queco" effectively the same?
:)
Should we take that any more seriously than claims that the work on Quenco is going to finish? Is there any difference? Other than the frequency of pronouncements by Philip aren't the outputs of "working on Quenco" and "not working on Queco" effectively the same?
Also what was that about needing $1M to do batch C? Does he have $1M? He certainly didn't earn it with Buddink which is less than $500.
Or, Even the number of companies or people making progress in this exact area of environmental heat conversion,Of course since that number is zero.
Or, Even the number of people from the past that have made similar claims of converting environmental heat into usable energy.
The most interesting thing in this thread is that you have never made a post in any other thread to claim their idea cannot work.Probably stupid guesses but you still think you can make a computer program which can deterministically predict if an arbitrary computer program will terminate so...
Whether it be magnet motors, gravity wheels, generator/motor combo's or any of the truly bad ideas in many of the other threads, you never say anything.
So, something is just a bit strange about that fact and I suppose you could tell us all why that is or maybe we could just make some guesses.
Unlikely.
I'm starting to think
..that you either know Philip and want to steel his work as your own, or maybe you just think you could do better because you know in the end, the quenco chip will work.ROFL. I can not believe how badly you suck at math. So let's just get all the ducks lined up now. If I don't think something will work, I can express that by saying something won't work. However that is *only* the case if I also criticize *other* things which are similarly stupid right here in this forum. If it don't then it's evidence that I think it *will* work? Seriously? That's your thought process?
I'm not sure at this point what it is, but your obsession with this single thread is not by chance!Nothing I haven't already said before. I followed Philips posts years back and then realized that he was very likely wrong and a fraud. I simply only have time for one thread on this board and considering how freely people get put on moderation here I doubt I would bother with more even if I had more time.
Maybe you could fill us all in eh!
And of course your obsession with ONLY this thread is.......?No obsession and still nothing I haven't already said several times. I followed Philips posts years back and then realized that he was very likely wrong and a fraud. I simply only have time for one thread on this board and considering how freely people get put on moderation here I doubt I would bother with more even if I had more time.
No obsession and still nothing I haven't already said several times. I followed Philips posts years back and then realized that he was very likely wrong and a fraud. I simply only have time for one thread on this board and considering how freely people get put on moderation here I doubt I would bother with more even if I had more time.
Please figure out what exactly your hypothesis is and your expectations surrounding it and how they are evidence for or against your hypothesis. Remember for any hypothesis H with probabilistic expectation E. If E strengthens H then ~E must also strengthen ~H.
That's bull crap, no one follows someone around for years because they believe that they have a bad idea.Is it really so hard to believe that from time-to-time I would Google "quentron" just to see what the crazy man is up to? As for this thread in particular often I just have a browser tab open and I reload it from time to time when I'm bored. When the thread is active I do this more frequently when it's not - I don't.
You clearly have some vested interest in this device either working or not working or you are just a bit off keel in your life.False dichotomy (or tricotomy?) Philip is nuts and you people are all stupid for hanging off his "Oh just wait until...". It's not hard to believe that there's some entertainment value in watching the drama play out.
I see bad ideas in many other threads and I don't stay there just to make claim that the idea is bad, let alone stay ONLY in that thread to repeat the claim over and over.Your error is, as usual a problem with your logic. I don't *just* say the idea is bad.
The data here indicates something more, something beyond any known reason to this point.Man! You do take your sorry self seriously. I mean *listen* to yourself: "The data DEMANDS that this guy MUST be more than getting his kicks out of watching people like lumen put on a crazy show." Although I particularly like the "something" bit. That leaves your hypothesis open so you can confirm it if you learn anything about me that you can connect to Philip. Sarkeizen has read Philip's posts on other forums! I knew there was a connection! Philip and Sarkeizen both like Apples! I knew there was a connection!
So why don't you just go ahead and fill us in on the obsessive compulsive disorder you are showing andThis is terribly insensitive to people who actually have this medical condition. You should apologize.
tell us how you are connected to this device.Do you not see how Philip, You and a lot of people here are like some huge crazy comedy show? I just listed six hilarious episodes Philip, you and the others let me be a part of.
Again, why don't you write up your hypothesis and the expectations which you consider to be evidence of it and then I'll crush them....or don't. I'll be entertained regardless of whether you try to defend your point or relentlessly pretend that everything I say is "data" that must connect me to Philip. With each post of mine you can become more and more certain until you are rabidly convinced...
Or maybe some other similar device you may be connected to, or even a why your trying to discredit this type on research as fictional.
I think it's time you just let the cat out.
and your insane claims that it cannot work and your obsession to show that it cannot!Please cite a claim I have made and demonstrate how it is insane. :D You will probably ignore this because you will lose if you try because....well...you suck at making a cogent argument.
Where is this different?In the fact that you're wrong.
One has learned from the past without exception and one has learned from the past with exception?You know what would be a good example of someone learning from the past? You admitting you're wrong about being able to write a program which can deterministically determine if an arbitrary program will terminate?
It looks to me that you would not waste time refuting Philip's claims if you were certain it could not work.Which claims? What degree of certainty? Why do you get to decide what is a waste of my time?
The ONLY thread, just think about that!Why do you think this is significant? You can't seem to say...if you were to provide a hypothesis, and the evidence you think supports it then we could see how well it stands up to scrutiny. I do understand that you might want to avoid having your argument crushed as you're probably still a little sore from having your ego bruised in the thread about program termination.
Over 200 posts in one thread and NONE in any other!
If something is declared false, to continually declare it false afterward does not make it more false, but it does assure oneself that it is still false, right?Is there any knowledge in your head that isn't some cheap, poorly understood platitude?
It looks to me like doubt showing through.I thought you said it was a sign of my secret plot to "steel" quenco? Would I try to "steel" quenco if I had significant doubts?
The Karpen Pile is claimed...and the rules about claiming something are far weaker than building something.
From your reply it looks like, given a choice, you would rather talk about insulting people than their ideas.Which thing is insulting? That you still think you can have a program which deterministically detects program termination? I suppose Alan Turing might find that insulting. You certainly spent a fair amount of time insulting me personally while I was kicking your butt in that argument. Strange that you should be so sensitive now. Also you didn't seem very sensitive when you took a real, diagnosed medical disorder and used it as a put-down...and that was only a few posts ago.
How does this demonstrate that 2LOT was broken exactly?
2LOT was broken over 60 years ago, you just never saw that, and never will.
Which thing is insulting? That you still think you can have a program which deterministically detects program termination? I suppose Alan Turing might find that insulting. You certainly spent a fair amount of time insulting me personally while I was kicking your butt in that argument. Strange that you should be so sensitive now. Also you didn't seem very sensitive when you took a real, diagnosed medical disorder and used it as a put-down...and that was only a few posts ago. How does this demonstrate that 2LOT was broken exactly?
I understand you goal to feel superior and really pump up your egoI was just pointing out the irony. You've imagined that I prefer insulting people to discussing their ideas (although you haven't pointed out exactly what is insulting, nor will you probably). However you were pretty insulting and non-responsive during that whole affair concerning the termination of computer programs. The way you were talking, one might get the idea that you think it's generally bad to prefer insulting people to discussing their ideas...or is it only ok for you? :D
because you seem to be a bit bipolar,Bipolar is a medical diagnosis that people actually suffer from. Mental illness is stigmatized enough in this society, no need for you to make it more bigoted than it already is.
but I have bigger fish to fry.Unlikely.
The Karpen pile as it was called by others, or "the uniform-temperature thermoelectric pile," as he named it.Again what does that have to do with breaking 2LOT. Because someone *called* it something? So if someone 120 years ago called something "The-intrinsic-2nd-law-violator" that would be all Lumen needs to believe that the 2nd law was broken 120 years ago?
You might want to do just a bit of research on this before you fail at your goal as stated above.
Again what does that have to do with breaking 2LOT. Because someone *called* it something? So if someone 120 years ago called something "The-intrinsic-2nd-law-violator" that would be all Lumen needs to believe that the 2nd law was broken 120 years ago?
I mean, that's convenient but don't you think you should hold the evidence-bar a little higher? Perhaps off the ground?
I'll leave out the rest because you are just treading in the past.I guess that's an easy way to avoid admitting that you're wrong. "Oh hey a few hours ago Lumen made a bigoted comment about mental illness but that's okay it's in the past"
The Karpen pile is a uniform-temperature thermoelectric battery that produces substantial electrical output from an isothermal environment.Some people claim it is this. What evidence is there that is doing this?
It's been doing this for over 60 yearsApparently you believe it is doing this but again what's the evidence?
and is understood to be pulling energy from environmental heatAgain this seems to be your belief but again what is the evidence?
ltage is about 1 volt and to run a tiny motor to work a switch would require at least a few milliamps minimum.Please quote what Kelvin specifically said and what makes what you believe has been observed is in violation of that. Please be specific, as that is not really something you do well. I won't hold my breath. I expect broad pronouncements, preening and insults but hey you could surprise me if you try to be less....you. :D
Lord Kelvin has stated in the 2LOT that this would indeed be impossible, yet oops there it is!
So you sit there and claim Philip's idea to be impossible because he has tried for a few years to build itNo I've said that if you believe that Philip's delivering something is evidence of Philip's ability to deliver than you must also believe that Philip's failure to deliver is evidence of his inability to deliver. This is just Bayesian probability. Math a lot more strongly supported than your belief in someone saying something somewhere about some batter. :)
and the math shows it to be impossible, but yet you totally ignore the fact that the 2LOT theory was compromisedSo the fact that someone said something violates 2LOT and you believe it is, in your mind a counter to the idea that Philips idea very probably doesn't work. Amusingly in order for your argument to mean anything you would have to also believe that one 2LOT violation validates all proposed mechanisms for violating 2LOT which is clearly untrue but it's still amusing that you appear to believe it. :D
that produces substantial electrical output
The voltage is about 1 volt and to run a tiny motor to work a switch would require at least a few milliamps minimum.
karpen systems have been built with hundreds times power densities of the original.they will flash l.e.d,s permanently,power ipods permanently
He (the keeper) took the system out of it's secured shelf and allowed the specialists to measure its output with a digital multimeter.Does that violate 2LOT? I measured something with a multimeter once and it showed 1 volt. Should I have called a press conference?
Yes there are examples of things running on micro energy, such as the Oxford bell, that will eventually run down over a few hundred years.The only reason we know that it will run down in 100 years or so is because we know what it was constructed of and it's principle of operation. Take away all that and add some claims about ZPE and 2LOT and you really have no better evidence that this is 2LOT violating any more than the bell is.
The Karpen pile (of crap) is however different in that even one cycle would power the Oxford bell for another 100 years. It is drawing much more current to do the work because the voltage is very low.Actually you don't really know that either but feel free to cite a source from a reputable journal.
You are also right in that it's not my place to say that it is a direct violation of 2LOT just because it generates power from an unknown source for 60+ years.I think you mean *I* was right. ROFL.
Just because the inventor, who was very well respected in that time,A combination of "how do you measure that?" and "who cares?".
makes the claim that it runs on environmental heatAnd that's good evidence because claims are hard to make right?...oh wait no they're not. :)
and that no one else can determine the source of energyMan do you try hard to brainwash yourself...one of your more amusing traits.
Or even the fact that you can lead a horse to water but..........The hilarious thing is that I haven't even said this doesn't work. It's very likely some combination of poor information (from Lumen NO...say it isn't so) and pretty standard physics. However so far Lumen can't even explain why this is 2LOT violating, and now he says he can't say it is but he sure WAS saying that exact thing (stupidly) earlier so maybe he'll figure out what he wants to say and then say it but more likely he will just change to a different angle because he really doesn't know what he's talking about.
And for sarky as I said before......."and never will"!
Established during the 19th century, the Kelvin-Planck statement of the Second Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin-Planck_statement) says, "It is impossible for any device that operates on a cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_process) to receive heat from a single reservoir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_reservoir) and produce a net amount of work." This was shown to be equivalent to the statement of Clausius.Don't you have to demonstrate that this is, in fact the only reasonable explanation for what this thing is doing (if it's doing anything)? Again all you seem to be saying is: "Somebody said it does this." and again you should probably have a higher evidence-bar. Otherwise I have a 2LOT violating piece of swampland to sell you. :D
whats the problem with sarkeizen and milehigh?Probably that we differentiate between what one imagines and what is observed. Your ability to imagine that some part of physics will result in a 2LOT violation, and that some device you have never directly observed MUST both have implemented this correctly and is operating correctly. Is not at issue. You and lumen both have very fertile imaginations.
@lumen. gold and platinum,2 different work functions,2 different absorption capacities for oxygen gas. karpen pile = quenco.So are you saying the ideal karpen pile device - to distinguish what you imagine from what is observed - is a Maxwell's Demon device which reduces entropy in an isothermal system?
Probably that we differentiate between what one imagines and what is observed. Your ability to imagine that some part of physics will result in a 2LOT violation, and that some device you have never directly observed MUST both have implemented this correctly and is operating correctly. Is not at issue. You and lumen both have very fertile imaginations.
The question is: Has there been a direct observation of anything which violates 2LOT - even Lumen who seems to have all sorts of issues. Appears to agree that this has not been observed.
So are you saying the ideal karpen pile device - to distinguish what you imagine from what is observed - is a Maxwell's Demon device which reduces entropy in an isothermal system?
even Karpen himself was a firm believer in 2LOT.Again equal parts "How do you measure that?" and "Why would that be important?"
Someone has replicated something people are not actually allowed to examine thoroughly...is that really what you want to say? Or are you saying people on youtube claim they have 2LOT violating devices. That NEVER happens...oh wait...it does.
I see someone on youtube has replicated a Karpen pile.
Though not very scientifically constructed as there could be some chemical reaction going on there.*could* is a funny word there. Like you think the absolute most likely conclusion to draw from something you can't even examine yourself, assembled by someone who might or might not have done it correctly is that IT MUST BE 2LOT VIOLATING. Before you call reporters you might want to nail down a few facts....
According to the patent, the Karpen pile will drop in temperature when used, indicating the consumption of environmental heat.What does "consumption" mean? Does my refrigerator "consume" heat? I'm pretty sure it doesn't violate 2LOT. How many times in the last few years has the pile sitting in a museum had the temperature drop validated and by whom? What level drop was measured on that device?
Let me guess. The cheap ones produce a smaller effect and it's poorly measured and all the evidence is on youtube... :D
Karpen has given may ways to construct his device and some are very easy to build with inexpensive materials.
He only used gold and platinum in his display device so there could be no question of chemical reaction producing any current.Yet you can't actually validate that what's sitting in the office of the museum is actually made of those things. Don't you think you should determine that before you call the press conference. Just saying...
@sarkeizen what is observed is a common electrode concentration cell man.Really? Isn't this a piece of equipment that nobody has disassembled and barely anyone has seen? How are you "observing" this? Please confine yourself to stating things actually observed, readings taken, etc... Not things you want to imagine they mean. From there you need to make an argument that NECESSITATES your conclusions from the data observed.
dispute the laws of electrochemistryCan you point to a place where I explicitly question some well-defined law of electrochemistry? Nope. Now you may *imagine* that I'm implicitly doing so but that's again the problem with your argument.
Don't bother profitis, sarky is only here to win arguments.Considering how many arguments I've had with you, and as you say I win them...aren't you admitting that you've lost them?
He believes the theories that he read about, as fact, and any facts he reads that dispute the theories (of his heros)... well, must be wrong!Close but not quite. A theory is a pretty broad term, by contrast a theorem in math is something that is proven. I have no idea what you mean by "fact" (you seem to have used the term in two contradictory ways in your post). But I recognize that a proof is a formal logical consequence of it's assumptions. To think otherwise is no different than believing there exists an integer which satisfies. 4x + 5 = 0. It doesn't matter how many people believe, report or say such a thing exists. It simply can not without violating logic. Hence if you want to believe in your pet theory, you have to give up all of logic (or all certainty of logic and math).
@sarkeizen no need to observeThe argument that Lumen put forth is that this thing that is sitting in an office in a museum IS constantly violating 2LOT and has been for 60 years - if you strain your eyes just slightly you can see where he actually says this. You are saying that I don't have to look at it to determine that it is doing so. I don't need any data, any observations? Your view of science seems very different than mine.
what is your complaint exactly because you are quite vague on this textbook issue.I'm not being vague as much as I don't acknowledge that it's relevant. It's not the thing being discussed. Either the real object in question is violating 2LOT or it is not. You appear to be saying that I can validate that a particular object is violating 2LOT without observing it. That seems pretty weird (and a little shifty as even you have claimed that *something* was observed but you're were vague as to what and now you seem to agree that it's hard to observe this specific object but that I don't need to or something).
please dont digress nowROFL. I'm trying to stem your digression.
@sarkeizen forget about what lumen said and listen to what the textbooks say please.Sure. Point me to a mainstream textbook which states clearly (that is requiring no inference) that a practical device can be built which can do work in an isothermal environment without limit. Cite the paragraph and page number. I'll find it when I have some time.
i dont understand your need to discuss the 2lot anywayEver get around to look at the name of this sub-forum "2nd 'law' violations". More to the point is why you think it's germane to talk about something else here.
Don't you see that everything sarky reads is true, without testing or proof*yip* *yip* *yip* What's that sound. Some tiny dog barking at my heels. As usual you live up to your crazy reputation. I just got done explaining to you how a "theorem" in math is by far used to refer to something that *is* proven.
where everything you read is nothing real because you have no proof.Well when someone starts saying: "Oh this thing that nobody has opened works just like this..." I think that's good reason to be skeptical but that's just me. Perhaps in Lumen-land everything everyone says about everything is valid. Very post-modern of you.
I call it the circular loop, his belief must be better than yours! Yes, the world according to sarky is the only correct answer, proof or not.Awww...so cute that you're so butthurt about being beaten so thoroughly. Again I'd ask you to read what I wrote above but you won't or won't understand or just preen and posture like you've been doing.
Like I said, he knows nothing about chemistry, or engineering, or science, he only recites theory.What little expertise I have is in math which is just a branch of logic. Which dictates, to a point how the world works. Information theory, complexity theory is just physics from the bottom up. As Scott Aaronson says "Perhaps the physicists and us meet in the middle".
What also bugs me is that he is more concerned with the 2lot than with the economic viability of the thing.Huh? In a conversation about 2LOT on a FORUM about 2LOT responding to a direct question about 2LOT. You really think it's reasonable to take me to task about the fact that you show up, butt in and want to talk about something else? And then be an ass about it?
Well sarky, maybe you could use your math to figure out where you went wrong!Dude, this is part of your problem. You could have used that post to actually make an argument.** You could have spent time thinking about what it is you are trying to say, spent some time in self-criticism to find the flaws in it, revise it and then say it. Instead you just make vague assertions and trite comments. You probably don't even read half of what I type before you knock off another bit of invective. I wouldn't mind but that's all you have to say. The irony is, that implies that I'm taking you far more seriously than you take me. Which would be just one of those things if you weren't going on and on and on and on about how I'm not engaged here.
@sarkeizen dont be clever nowIt's a habit that's hard to break.
we both know that no schoolbook is going to paragraph a 'how to bust 2lot'You know what I hate about that profitis guy...he's all about 2LOT and doesn't care about the viability of the idea. :-)
this thread isnt about 2lot.its about wether quenco works and is useful or not.Did you get elected to the council of of "what this thread is about?". I must have missed the memo. Again it's a board for 2LOT violations, I was answering a direct question about 2LOT. Now stop being an ass and man up to your argument.
@sarkeizen i repeat. this thread is about the commercial viability of the aforementioned quenco.You can "repeat" all you want. I have already given pretty sufficient grounds as to why I've been talking about what I've been talking about.
you still havent answered as to why you bother about trivialities e.g. 2lot?You're right. I haven't answered a question that was not directly asked and a fallacious "complex question" no less. Funny that. If you are asking why am I talking about 2LOT for a small portion of this thread. It's exactly what I said before. Much of Philips writing about quenco includes the claim that if violates 2LOT - demonstrating that this is not the case is germane to his claim - even Philip seems to think so as he made the posting in a board marked for just such conversations. More recently Lumen implied that 2LOT had been broken by Bella Legosi's Pile** discussing 2LOT in this context is of course understandable. If you have a question about another place where I mention 2LOT then you should cite it and I'll tell you why I was talking about it at the time.
and im beginning to think that this quirky obsession of yours is highly suspect.perhaps to purposely steer attention away from the issue at handThat might be an argument if you had a strong way of establishing the "issue at hand" to the exclusion of a number of related issues. You don't. So it isn't. Congratulations, you're wrong.
regarding my aforementioned referal to the subsection of textbooks,if you dont have the electrochemistry knowledge to see the connectionScore one for me I guess? It's not as easy as you seemed to imply. Your argument has taken a predictable turn towards inconsistency. We were all about looking at textbooks - in particular looking at something you claim is clearly laid out in all sorts of textbooks.
of no help or use in our quest for commercialy viable solutions to our energy needs..Sadly, when I logged on to this forum I didn't check the box that said: "Profitis gets to tell me what to do". Is that despotic demand No. 3?
@sarkeizen if i sell you a quenco to use to power your calculator at an affordable price with a money-back guarantee that it wont run flat in the next 30years are you going to now start shooting me down over 2lot trivialities?This a deceptive characterization. The places where I have spoken about 2LOT are where it was being discussed - in fact my original argument against Philips device wasn't directly a 2LOT argument. It was simply that Philip seemed to argue that he had a Maxwell's Demon device that would produce work forever in an isothermal environment. I argued that information theory says "no" and when he simply decided that those rules don't apply to him I argued that complexity theory also says "no" by what I think of as a novel use ov BBBV. When you pitched a whiny fit about me talking about 2LOT - I switched and talked about textbooks (at your despotic request). Apparently that isn't good enough for you either because you sure don't seem to be delivering on your end of the bargain.
if you had taken the trouble to go to your electrochemist friendI don't have such a friend.
@sarkeizen hey if your friend,s skills are good enough he,l build you an ipod or radio battery that,l go on for 30years.Is this your argument? Do you have an argument anymore or have I already crushed them?
ok lets chat about 2lot since your not going to stop bugging me about itWhat? Have you read anything I've typed? Other than defending against your constant infantile whining about my prior mentioning of 2LOT. I've said: "Hey let's talk about what you want to talk about...textbooks"...and now you are trying to pretend that I'm bugging *YOU* ROFL. If I'm bugging you about anything it would be that you actually get on with your argument about textbooks. I'm ready to read some textbooks, so again please provide the magic passage that I'm supposed to read.
yes its a maxwell demon.no temperature difference required between the two electrodes in any particular direction.an oxygen concentration cell is the electrochemical equivalent of quenco.But quenco is a quantum device right? If it's a maxwell's demon device it is effectively sorting. Therefore it's sorting at O(1). However BBBV says it can't do any better than O(sqrt(N)).
find a friend to build one for you and chek it out.I don't need to. You've kind of agreed that quenco can't work or at least is very unlikely to.
@sarkeizen nah i think you need to.go on buddy,find a friend to build you an oxygen electrode concentration cell and chek it out thoroughly then come back tomorrow and i,l address your complaints if you still have any.fair enough?Um...my complaint is that you don't really have any argument here...and you're being a dick about it. Beliefs must make observable predictions. I don't have anyone to build the magical mystery device and even if I had one. What prediction does it make with respect to 2LOT or quenco operating as claimed (which claims to be a 2LOT violating device).
The problem I have is that everything falls under information theory.I've tried to explain this to you before. Saying "information theory says you can't build X" is no different than saying. You can't build a device which can produce an integer solution for 4x + 5 = 0. Why do you have trouble with the former and not the later? Assuming you don't have a problem with the later.
i ) A Maxwell demon, as it is claimed, would need to detect the more energetic atoms to know when to open the door and let them in, requiring more energy to sort than the energy gained in the captured energetic atoms.
ii) So considering that even if there is no door, then any method to collect or determine the more energetic atoms, would still fall under information theory.
iii) Then all systems that separate in any method more energetic atoms from the norm, would fall under information theory.
iv) Finally because in entropy, the more energetic atoms disperse faster than the norm, in effect being separated first, entropy falls under information theory and does not work.
Or, maybe not everything falls under information theory!Might as well say, not everything falls under logic. You can try to live that way but you won't get very far.
@sarkeizen uhm,how about it uses two different work function materials to propell electrons from the lower work function material to the higher work function material on a continuous basisHow about practicing being less vague? Are you making an argument? It sounds like you're just saying "it works". You haven't actually explained how any of this violates 2LOT.
An active maxwell demon is not required for a 2lot breach,it can be totaly passive and let the higher energy particles flop into its hand,the degree of energy gain depending how high he holds his hand open.Active and passive are distinctions without a difference. Again if this was as simple as you say, a simple spring loaded trap door could do the same thing...and we know it can't.
@sarkeizen look,go build it,chek if its 2lot compliant and come back to me in the morning ne?First of all, you're an idiot. "2lot compliant" doesn't mean anything.
power ipods permanently.in fact its imposible to drain their power or even weaken their power unless you break them up.So your Van Hausen Pile creates power forever.
the karpen system follows the rules governing gaseous concentration cells.case closed.whats the problem with sarkeizen and milehigh?we may never know.why they object to standard applied physics is a mysteryIt creates power forever though completely standard physics.
please refer to your electrochemistry text-book under section: electrode concentration cells,and tell us what issue you have with what is written.Standard physics available in apparently any electrochemestry textbook.
.its written and predicted in textbooks under section 'electrode concentration cells'In a section about electrode concentration cells.
going to dispute the laws of electrochemistry then yes,it is hopeless to argue with him.i cant argue with someone who,s going to change the laws of physics to suit them.Furthermore these physics which can find in textbooks are LAWS of electrochemistry.
Lumen put forth is that this thing that is sitting in an office in a museum IS constantly violating 2LOT and has been for 60 yearsBut the response is...
forget about what lumen said and listen to what the textbooksSo I'm game...
Point me to a mainstream textbook which states clearly (that is requiring no inference) that a practical device can be built which can do work in an isothermal environment without limit. Cite the paragraph and page number. I'll find it when I have some time.But what I get is..
no schoolbook is going to paragraph a 'how to bust 2lot' manualWait, so is this thing a violation of 2LOT or not? I just got post after post of flack because I mentioned 2LOT. Such as the following...
you still havent answered as to why you bother about trivialities e.g. 2lot?and im beginning to think that this quirky obsession of yours is highly suspect.perhaps to purposely steer attention away from the issue at hand?However again asking for text book paragraphs gets me...
if i sell you a quenco to use to power your calculator at an affordable price with a money-back guarantee that it wont run flat in the next 30years are you going to now start shooting me down over 2lot trivialitiesHuh?! All of a sudden we have moved from powering iPods FOREVER to powering calculators for 30 years. After that it just turns into
You suckered me away from commercial viability issues into a 2lot discussion and now you want to cross-examine my knowledge?It is of course entirely my fault that Profitis posted what he did...
Disgusting.from now on i will only discuss commercial viability of this class of devices.Well at least he's not telling everyone what the thread is about anymore. Not sure what "this class of devices" means. Quenco's prime characteristic according to it's inventor is that it can convert heat from an isothermal environment into energy. So we all know the commercial viability of something that actually DOES that but if it doesn't. What's the commercial viability of a device which claims to convert heat from an isothermal environment into energy but doesn't do that. My guess would be very little.
well @sarkeizen if you refuse to build the O2 concentration cell then how will you be able to know if it acts like an ideal quenco or not?You are a troll.
who cares if its a 2lot disruption or not.all we know is that it wont run out of fuel,ever.please refer to your electrochemistry text-book
yes its a maxwell demon.no temperature difference required between the two electrodes in any particular direction.
How will you know if it can power your ipod and calculator at the same time for 60years or not?how will you know if it works in a isothermal environment or not?sorry buddy but youre going to have to build it.Did you lie then? It sure sounds like you lied about there being a textbook section that validates your statements. Why would you do that?
if you want your answers,you have no choiceROFL. Actually you're wrong. The only question I wanted an answer to is: Do you have a good argument.
@sarkeizen so you dont want to build it,chek it out in a isothermal environment and show us that it works like a quencoYou are a massive idiot twice over now.
go to your textbook right now and tell me when you are there by the page dealing with concentration cellsWhat textbook...wait. After all this crap about "read the textbooks" you don't own one do you. ROFL. How many times have I asked you to CITE - what you want me to read and I'll go find it and read it. I must have said that a-half dozen times now. Were you really not reading? Seriously?
if you were an electrochemist you wouldve immediately seen that an O2 cell,just,cant,run out of fuel,ever.
@sarkeizen...ok mr smartass go to the nernst equasion and apply it to two O2 electrodes with different concentrations of O2 on them and come explain to me why you imagine(your favorite word)that this particular cell wont work.Does the word "cite" not mean anything to you? I must have used it six or seven times. I even defined what it meant. I do not have a textbook for the 2nd or third time. Please tell me a mainstream textbook to use and the page reference. How does someone who yaps about looking at textbooks not own one.
im going to watch carefully if you try to bend them to suit your mood.What? Dude, I don't know who you're having a conversation with but it isn't me. I have been asking you for eight or so posts now for a textbook reference and now you want to act like I'm trying to pull a fast one. On the other hand...
@sarkeizen dont be a dunce,i just cited the nernst equasion man.of all the things i chose to CITEDude. I've already defined what I meant by a "cite" a few times now. Why do you insist on not reading what I write? Why do you try so hard to avoid making what appears to be a simple point. Look how easy it is.
Assertion: A vector space over m of vectors v1, v2, ..., vn in V is a basis iff it is linearly independent and complete.
Page 10, Linear Algebra Done Wrong, Sergei Treil, Department of Mathematics, Brown University
either you will go and build a common O2 concentration cell,chek it out thoroughly,or you wont.Are we back to that? Why do I have to build something to test YOUR assertion which YOU said came straight out of a textbook?
hammerstein said that it works in a isothermal bathDude, if this is part of your original argument. Where you said that we should pay attention to the textbooks. Then how about citing the textbook. I've even given you an example that a three-toed sloth could follow.
so if you dont have a isothermal bath to test that part of the advert out thats your problem not mine.ROFL come on. Is this how you approach every argument? It's pretty funny.
we dont have time for isothermal baths as you do.Well if you're claiming that this is extracting energy from ambient heat then you don't have much choice in validating that claim. Do you not think validating claims is important?
we either listen to hammerstein,s advert for a button cell that lasts 30yearsI thought it never stopped producing energy? Or have you switched your thesis again? Can you make up your mind if the device does work forever or if it does work for 30 years.
or we go buy a regular button cell that may or may not self-discharge after 2yearsActually that's a false dichotomy but anyway...
@sarkeizen no you are the complainant not meYawn. You really have gone from highly assertive to downright shy. Now you appear to be attempting to hide behind some rules you imagined about arguments.
a 2lot discrepency or not,sorry,thats your babyEither you are claiming the above or you are not. Man are you working super hard to keep your claim away from being examined. Is it ignorance, cowardice or what? I wonder.
i told you im only interested in hammersteins commercial viability.Irrelevant. You either made a claim or you didn't. Now speak up.
i said go to the textbookI simply asked: "Which textbook?". Why can't you answer that? Are you just BSing me?
apply its rules to build a common O2 concentration cellSee, despite acting all offended about questioning your knowledge. You come off as someone who's understanding is ankle-deep. You can't tell me what, where or how about anything. You can only parrot the same uninformed, vague and poorly phrased thing. Do you not understand how your being ENTIRELY USELESS at investigating your OWN claim is an indication that you don't know what you're talking about?
and check if it powers your calculator for 30years.You made an claim that powering something from heat FOREVER can be resolved by going to a text. You won't tell me what text or where in a particular text. How are you not seeing your behavior as obstructionist. So currently you seem to be saying I need to go through all books until I find one that can validate your claim, which isn't very clear or somehow construct something based on nothing other than a vague claim and then wait 30 years?
i didnt say go to the textbook for a paragraph interfering with 2lotYou seemed to claim that a TEXTBOOK would support your claim that you can power something FOREVER from ambient HEAT. In the HUMAN world it's entirely reasonable to ask "Oh, which textbook is that?"
@sarkeizen i made a claim that a O2 concentration cell will power your calculator for 30 yearsNope. You said: "power ipods permanently.in fact its imposible to drain their power or even weaken their power unless you break them up." At no point did you say that this claim was invalid. If it is, stand up and say so.
works on exactly the same principal as quenco(an electron concentration cell).The only claim you can make is that it works on exactly the same principle as the PROPOSED quenco. Nobody has quencos. The proposal is that it works by converting environmental heat into electricity. Does your device not work by absorbing heat?
i did not make a claim that either quenco or hammerstein is a 2lot violationOk you claimed that it works on the EXACT principle as quenco claims to. Quenco CLAIMS to absorb heat and turn it into electricity even in an isothermal environment. Does your thing not do that?
i gave an answer,i did not claim.big big difference.ROFL. Man are you squirming. So now you want to attempt a special definition of "claim". Which means something much, much, much less than "states as true".
then i ran from your courtroom narrowly escaping a guilty verdict and savage knifewounds barely one minute into the trial before the jury had even arrived.You fantasies are pretty vivid. I wonder what they're like when you're sober.
now you want me to come back into YOUR courtroomIf there is a courtroom it's in YOUR HEAD. Perhaps brought on because you refuse to either backdown from claims you clearly made (like powering something forever in an isothermal environment) OR provide the location of where these claims can be validated in a textbook Which YOU SAID was where I could find validation.
to face more of your crap instead of just building the thing and testing it?disgusting.Dude, you made a few claims. Including one about 2LOT violation - even though you are trying like freaking crazy - to the point of *redefining* the word "claim". To avoid...heck I don't know what you are trying to avoid there perhaps you need to have a talk with someone or something.
yes the textbook will tell you how to build a quenco-hammerstein cell that will absolutely work.You said that the RULES in the textbook state that it will power something like an iPod FOREVER. I'd like to see those rules. Can you point me to a specific textbook and a specific place in it? Why not?
forget about what philip said.a quenco wont violate 2lot but it will power your ipod for 97 years(lifespan of the transistor on-switch in the ipod circuit).guaranteed.Sorry the guarantee from someone who stresses "these rules in a textbook show that you can construct something that will run something like an iPod FOREVER" but when asked "which textbook specifically?" spends every waking moment avoiding the question isn't worth very much.
@sarkeizen i already told you dudeWrong as usual...
.its written and predicted in textbooks under section 'electrode concentration cells'See, you said this. I am asking WHERE it is WRITTEN AND PREDICTED. Your words. Not mine. Either admit you lied and this is not written and predicted or tell me where it is written and predicted or admit you don't know where it is written and predicted.
why must i repeat myself? reach for a standard chem textbook,go to section titled concentration cells,use it to help you build a O2 concentration cellYou probably have to repeat yourself because you're consistently not answering giving me the information you said you had (or at least implied you had). Notice in this quote nothing whatsoever was mentioned about building anything. You just made that up after to avoid answering the question.
test it on your calculator for permanent number of years.what part of this process dont youThe fact that it has nothing to do with the question I asked about the information you said was "written and predicted". Why say "written and predicted" if you can't tell me where the powers-an-ipod-forever-battery-is "written and predicted".
You said the word permanent implies a 2lot disgrace and so?what are you waiting for?must i now sing?jump up n down?pay you?..?I want you to answer the question that you implied you could answer, or admit you didn't really know what you were talking about or that you lied.
@sarkeizen..written E= RTIn C1/C2.predicted E= RTIn c1O2/c2O2. Here is your formulae for a very well predicted O2 hammerstein cell voltage.now lets check up duration uhhm uhh whats that formula for capacity again W=V x I,,,x time..V=0.3 (hammerstein volts) x 1000micro-amp x time,uhm time? Time?holy shit its permanent! the friggen fuel to the anode is replenished by the cathode,mama mia.What textbook is this from....and what page because you said:
.its written and predicted in textbooks under section 'electrode concentration cells'
@sarkeizen replenished: O + 2H+ +2e- = H2O(cathode E=RTln aO2 + work function platinum).H2O = O + 2H+ + 2e-(anode E=RTln aO2 + work function gold). E hammerstein =work function gold -work function platinum
.its written and predicted in textbooks under section 'electrode concentration cells'Textbook please....if you're being honest. If you're not, well you should be honest about that.
the scary bit E hammerstein =E Pt-O(ads) - E Au-O(ads) simplifies Equenco= EAu-EPt
.its written and predicted in textbooks under section 'electrode concentration cells'
you want to be my schoolteacher now?No but if you're going to write something it should be intelligible and your deliberate misspellings and typographical conventions are silly. You don't even know what half the things I mentioned are. Do you?
just go to an average chem textbook and use it to help you buildWhat? Back to building again? You see for some reason I thought you said:
.its written and predicted in textbooks under section 'electrode concentration cells'Oh that's because you did...and you're reneging on that. How disappointing.
test it thoroughly,and i mean thoroughly.You are, yet again an idiot. I've already explained that nothing in my house, or my neighbours house or my non-existent electrochemist friend's house. Can test this in any meaningful way.
chek if it runs forever ON PAPER to your satisfaction since you absolutely and stubbornly refuse to build the frikkn thing.ROFL. Seriously? That probably can't be done. You can hypothesize about physical systems on paper but you can't actually test them. You can test, in a really laborious way a computer program on paper, or a finite state automata or even a formal axiomatic system but a physical system probably not.
fair enough?No. You said...
.its written and predicted in textbooks under section 'electrode concentration cells'
@sarkeizen..writtenBut not in a textbook that I can see...please supply the cite of a well-known textbook after all you said.
.its written and predicted in textbooks under section 'electrode concentration cells'Anything else is deceptive and kind of lying.
not so fast @sarkeizen.you owe me.you had me running around like a jumping bean the last 48hrsIn the same way that I'm not responsible for the American Civil war. I'm also not responsible for whatever you did in the last 48 hours because it had almost nothing to do with me. The only thing I've asked for is a cite from a textbook. Which is exactly what you spent the last 48 hours - or actually the whole thread doing anything but. You have not complied with a simple I question I asked within the first few posts in this thread even in the smallest useful respect.
now i demand thatYawn. Quit trolling and just produce a proper cite.
lets first get your basic school electrochemistry sorted out @hollander.you said platinum corrodes into solution in contact with gold,yet platinum is the CATHODE in the karpenquenco.. you are saying its an ANODE thus your argument already null and void.
hopelessDon't worry "it is only Svengali talking to himself again. "
hey i didnt make the rules for nernst cellsSo far there's little reason to believe that the conclusions which you've made which are contentious with the second law are the result of following any well established rule in a manner consistent with it's assumptions. :D About that cite...
@sarkeizen thats why im shy to stake claims about the 2nd law. that is something for people to decide for themselvesDeeply and truly idiotic of you to say so. A violation of the 2nd law is not subjective. It's also ingenuous since you have many times made statements where are necessarily equivalent to breaking the 2nd law.
what i rather do here on the thread is simply show the connection of established formulas to the system and then ask you to help me find a flawActually what you do is blather mindlessly to make yourself feel more convinced. You constantly refuse to answer my question. (implied request #19).
@sarkeizen but thats what im asking you,what part of a O2 concentration cell doesnt fitActually what you're doing is (in addition to trolling) attempting to argue by ignorance. You have had ample time to produce a cite. I think it's reasonably likely that the textbooks don't really say anything very close to what you are concluding. While you might be able to find formulae that vaguely resemble what you are typing (and it's not even clear that you even understand what you are typing considering you couldn't even tell me what one symbol meant). You won't find a claim equivalent to your claim that you can build a battery that will run something like an iPod forever.
your making me angry so im going to delay quoting from the textbook now.Troll, troll, troll, troll, troll...ROFL :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
you refuse to apply your rules to a common air-cellWhich rules are those? The primary set of rules we've been discussing are those in textbooks. That was your claim, that any textbook would validate that you can create a battery which would run an ipod like device forever. I don't have a textbook So I asked you for a cite. At that point all, real conversation stopped and you spent post after post avoiding this really simple question.
@sarkeizen i cited aWrong. Go back and read what a cite is. :D
why do you want a cite from a textbook?Well for one because that was the claim you made and that I have contention with...do I really need to quote it again? You made a clear-as-day claim that your conclusion was supported by not just *a* textbook but virtually all textbooks. In fact you specifically requested that we focus on what the textbooks say.
sounds like your just being an ass.ROFL. Actually that's you.
if you think i dont understand the formulaWhat evidence do we have that you understand anything? A few formulae which doesn't really resemble what comes out of a textbook, containing symbols that are not standard math symbols and when asked what they are supposed to represent (both explicitly and implicitly you were asked this) you don't seem capable of answer.
now lets hear your grievences with this crystal clear citationGo back and read what I wrote about citations. Why do you try so hard to avoid what any high-school student can do? I mean unless you're a troll? :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Yawn. Troll, troll, troll troll.
l organise that textbook citation just now
@sarkeizen so you have no grievences with that citation?yes or no?It's not a cite. Read what I wrote about citations, figure out what you did wrong.
@sarkeizen so you have no grievence with that citation case closed.now theres no need to cite anything more..As I said. It's not a cite.
@sarkeizen so you endorse that citation too,niiiccceeIt's not a cite.
@sarkeizen citation sitesmation,who cares what its called you agreed with it thats all that matters buddy.i just wanted you to agree with it thats all (-:Again your frustration is showing here. It's not what it's called it's what it is and what it is not. It's no different than anything else you've written. Clearly you don't think I agreed with everything else you wrote right? If you did, why bother writing post after post of blather? Why didn't you stop at post #1?
@sarkeizen whatever its called whatever it isWhat it is, is not something that can be agreed with in the context of the discussion. You just refuted yourself. Good job.
and its completely different to my other citationsYou haven't made any at all. :D :D :D :D
dont get all mad about itDude. I asked you to keep posting this stuff. Are you sure you aren't listening to the voices in your head? Please keep going. My friends love stories about people like you.
@sarkeizen yeah you asked me to post em but i asked you to agree with em and you didnt,until today that is :-).As far as I can tell you are just pretending that I said something because you are frustrated. That may work among the weak minded but not with most people...Ok it probably works with Lumen.
dont be ashamed @sarkeizen its ok to agree with the frikkn textbookAshamed of what? What textbook? So far all I've seen is you blathering and then you suddenly act like I've agreed with something which you can't seem to specify.
yes i promised to quote a cite but realy,thers no need after today mate.whats the point nowHmmmm...what would be the point? Oh I know...how about keeping your word? Not sure if that's important to you. Might not be, after all haven't you just made up a position for me right now?
,that last citation summed it all up :-)Again, you haven't posted any citations. You even appeared to agree with this. So again, not possible.
Sarky does not care about the mathWhat math? Profitis posted some strings of symbols that he claimed were formulae and when I asked him what a particular symbol meant. He wouldn't answer, no matter how many times he was asked.
, or the theoryWhat theory? His theory is essentially *poof* magic. I have been consistently requesting cites from reputable texts on theory but he keeps refusing. He even promised to give one but now he's saying that he would break that promise.
, or even a working deviceSure a device that clearly and consistently violates 2LOT would be exceptionally interesting but anything that appeared to be something like that would very likely be wrong.
he only cares if the information was in (or could be derived from) a book, because if it's in a book then it must be true. (yea right)Wow, way to miss the point. Profits's main point was "All textbooks agree that X is true"
He makes his money by writing books that are mostly cites or quotes from other books. That's why it's so important to him.Awesome Lumen the conspiracy theorist is back. I love it. For a second back there were you posted an actual argument I thought you were going all rational on me but nope....you're just as unhinged as you were when we first met.
@lumen yes i know but he finaly agreed with my last citation,miracles happen :-)
@lumen he,s trying to crawl out of it nowCrawl out of what exactly crazy man?
to rescue his stupidityYou are the only person I've ever met who would think about rescuing ones stupidity.
i said that he agrees with meI said a you are claiming I agree with "a statement of profitis" if you post something here, all we know is it's a statement of yours. It may in fact be from somewhere else but you know what would tell us one way or the other...a cite. I could then go to the source and read it.
when i said he agreed with the textbook quoteWell at least you finally realize it's not a cite. I haven't agreed with anything...yet anyway. I don't have a cite.
@lumen i gave sarkeizen the mail addressMail address? So I'm supposed to send them a letter? :D
he can look it up instantlyA cite needs to point to a specific document and if it is large you need to provide information stating the position in the document.
highest institution of electrochemYou mean it's on a mountain? Seriously how would you even evaluate this unless the field was ridiculously small.
do you agree with my last quotation or not.yes or noAgree, in what sense?
@sarkeizen youre the nasty oneI'm saying you were UNETHICAL not mean. There's an important difference. If you want someone to do something for you on the internet - like examine a quote or discuss something there's a requirement of good faith which you have repeatedly broken.
you called me an obstructionist assholeDude that's entirely, completely and utterly what you are. It's a label, when you get older you should consider getting your name permanently changed to that.
Ok i lied but i feel it was justifiedAnd somehow you don't think you're an asshole. Wow. Score one for the power of being blind to your own flaws.
because you evaded my question pertaining to my quote...deliberate attempted diversion of the subject(the quote)Seriously? You made a statement that I asked TWENTY TIMES for you to support in the manner that it was stated. What I'm guilty of is trying to keep you ON THE POINT. Which you said was "focus on the textbooks". Which I tried to but you kept deliberately trying to change the subject.
so now you ask me in what sense do i ask you a yes or no question pertaining to either agreeing or disagreeing with the same quote from the same highest institution?The problem is that you are entirely incorrect. It's not just a yes or no question. If what you mean is do I consider it factually correct. I simply have no opinion until I read it in context and perhaps ask you some questions.
any person with basic high school knowledge knows that batteries run until equilibrium and you know it too so youre obviously hellbent on sidetrackingIf your quote is really in a textbook and it actually supports your position then showing it to me in context can only benefit your position and persuade me. The only logically consistent reason to NOT provide a cite is because one of those premises is not true or you are being irrational.
and trying to be funnyNo I *am* funny and I've made no secret that you are amusing me.
delayed my promiseYou mean broke. You broke your word several times on the subject of providing a cite and below you say that if I answer then your promise is "not needed". That sounds an awful lot like "I never intended to keep my promise". Exactly how many times have you lied in this thread?
,yes or no.focus on my question now forget the textbook please,yes or noI am focusing on your question. I've told you what I need to answer it. How could that *not* be focusing on your question. Is logic ever taught in school anymore? My guess is it probably isn't.
you want me to run around for references,citations,cross-examinations and cross-textbook quotesSlippery slope fallacy. I asked you for one cite that you claim you would have handy. So unless you lied about it being in virtually every textbook then presumably you could have supplied it fifty times over in the time you spent being an enormous obstructionist asshole. Not only that but remember YOU were the one who said "focus on what the textbooks say" and that's what I'm doing.
for a question that a teenager can answer without hesitation.That's the "ad populum' fallacy. Look it up you logical loser.
so now instead of you answering this all-important question so that it can bring closure to my case that you had wanted me to do in the beginning of this chapter
you would rather stretch it out for the long haul?I just want to understand the statement I'm agreeing to. You seem to think that's unnecessary - that probably explains many of your other beliefs. Not to mention that if this is indeed a piece of information that can be found in a plethora of places then my friend, you are the only person who is at the greatest fault for stretching this out. :D
if you wont answer that logical questionSorry if there's one thing you have demonstrated you don't understand. It's logic. It's illogical to answer a question you don't understand but you think that's the very very very best way to approach things. Which is, of course stupid which might just be the easy explanation for your behavior but I'm willing to give it some time to see if there's something else here.
how do you propose we move forward to a factual conclusionSimple. You provide the cite. You personally and specifically requested that we focus on textbooks, you have implied that the cite is easy to obtain, you even promised to provide it. I am not making an unreasonable request.
The stalemate is on you now because i want to close instantly.Absolutely, entirely and utterly incorrect and provably so.
quote from a textbook that indicates an everlasting cell when i already just gave you oneCan you tell me the name of the textbook and the page number (publisher and edition are good too)? Those are two pretty normal pieces of information in a cite. In fact I mentioned both of them in the example cite I gave you. Is this a reading comprehension issue? It's starting to sound like it.
Its not an argument when somebody uses logic or common sense to support realitySo far you haven't shown much logic or common sense. Definitely zero logic.
and then gets poked about not providing the four thousand citations,references,cross-pre-examinations and post-cross-examinations to supportAgain, slippery slope fallacy. So far you were asked for exactly ONE cite. Furthermore it is one cite that you seem to say is easy to produce and of course you promised you would provide.
thats just being silly.an analogy discussion would beWrong. :D As I illustrate below...
obstructionist asshole claimant: 'air is see-through'Except that you might argue that this is self-evident - at least to someone who can see. However you can not argue the same thing about your claim that: "All textbooks predict that you can build a device that can run an ipod forever". Evidence suggests that quite a number of engineers and physicists do not consider at least my reading of that statement as self-evident. So this never really happened
obstructionist asshole claimant:'ok i,l show a reference'Isn't a reference something that REFERS to an object or book? Quoting something without any clear indication is actually not a reference. So this part never happened either. Also considering that your claim was: "All textbooks show..." it's a little foolish to pretend that such a thesis can be supported without referencing a textbook.
obstructionist asshole claimant:'ok i,l show a quote'Except that you were never asked for a quote. You have, since the beginning been asked for a cite. So again this part didn't happen either.
obstructionist asshole claimant:'please stop im exhausted'Dude if you don't want to talk, don't talk. Nobody is forcing you to be an obstructionist asshole and post here. All I've pointed out that you spend absolutely enormous amounts of time being an obstructionist asshole and zero time providing a cite
So must you seriously realy require the full blown citationROFL. ROFL. ROFL. All this drama, over something that takes under 5 minutes. Clearly less time than you've spend avoiding the question. To wit:
Let H be a subspace of a finite-dimensional vector space V. Any linearly independent set in H can be expanded, if necessary to a basis H. Also, H is finite-dimensional and dim H <= dim V
enormous obstructionist asshole claimant:'use the textbook to help you build a forever battery.'My response to this stupid argument of yours was, time and time again that you said:
no need to observe.its written and predicted in textbooks
all and every textbook on electrochemistry
Two statements s1, s2 are said to be logically equivallent, and we write s1 <-> s2, when the statement s1 is true (respectively, false) fi and only if the statement s2 is true (respectively false)That took me 2 minutes you lazy trolling ass.
chek it says cells run until equilibrium electrochem.cwru.edu/ed/dict.htmAs stated before if you're going to cite a large document you provide information to locate something in the document. For example: http://electrochem.cwru.edu/ed/dict.htm#a54
@sarkeizen sorry sir you must check under section c for concentration cell.our karpenquenco falls completely and utterly under that section,s rules and regulations.@EOA link please. :D
@sarkeizen very good sir.go to www.chem.queensu.ca/../Electrochem.asp scroller down to 'electrode concentration cells'. Oxygen gas is the species in solid solution.we bring our karpenquenco directly in line with the rules here and proceed..@EOA link doesn't work. :D
@sarkeizen apologies sir,go to www.chem.queensu.ca/people/faculty/mombourquette/chem221/8_equilibrium/electrochem.asp scroller down to 'electrode concentration cell'.oxygen gas is the species in solid solution inside of the karpenquenco.
@sarkeizen affirmative.O2 adsorbs directly onto the gold and platinum surfaces like a sponge to different degrees.There's simply not enough information on that site to make your argument.
@sarkeizen theres enough info there to a)predict an O2-electrode concentration cell and therefore b)predict when it will reach equilibrium.thats all that matters :-)EOA's "I'm avoiding a cite again" post #1 - I bet this gets to 100! :D
@sarkeizen so if i told you to go build a zinc-air cell and that it lasts forever whats preventing you from a)building/testing itWhat test unequivocally confirms "lasts forever" that doesn't take forever to do?
or b) if your lazy at least drawing it and checking it out in theory first.So far, what's stopping me from doing b) is you. I've asked you questions that you can't or won't answer.
logic enough?Already refuted, see above. Constructing something and imagining it runs forever is, unfortunately not the same as it running forever. Investigating the theory seems difficult as you spend most of your time being an enormous obstructionist asshole. :D
you havent made one single challenge on the grounds of common senseCommon sense is at best imaginary and at worst a logical fallacy. I have made a logical argument as to why what you have provided is insufficient to make your claim.
im telling you that a KNOWN TYPE OF CELL will not go flat ever.Then you should be able to produce a cite from a textbook which states that clearly, unequivocally and without needing any inference that these forever batteries can be created. I mean even if the "runs (an ipod) forever cell" was merely a curiosity of extremely limited practical value you would think it would merit a mention somewhere. Crystal radios, don't run forever in the same sense but they ARE mentioned in physics textbooks. I'm reasonably certain I can find a reference to a crystal radio needing no internal power in one of the two physics texts I have in my library at home (and if not I'm certain I can find such a cite faster than a moron like you).
its on you to disprove me not me to disprove you.Not really. All you have is a claim: "You can make a battery that can run a device like an ipod forever". Perhaps in EOA-world claims are exactly the same thing as a logical argument but in the real world they aren't.
@sarkeizen TWO maximum entropy states.TWO,2,DUO not one.an zinc-air cell has one maximum entropy state.an oxygen concentration cell has two maximum entropy states.we can expand on this when you agree with this.@EOA - Not enough clarity. Please provide a textbook cite that mentions the exact terms you want to use. If you are, as usual unwilling to provide a textbook definition for your terms. Then you have given up the argument: "the textbooks say..." and we are back to "EOA says..." and as I've mentioned you can imagine anything you want and I won't argue. However, unlike Peter Pan happy thoughts won't make your crap fly. :D
@sarkeizen so lets do that,lets take 2 standard oxygen electrodes from the textbook...@EOA - So does that mean I get a cite?
any complaints?Other than the above and the fact you're the first person I've met who says "from the textbook" to mean "From no textbook that I'm willing to tell you about..." which is awesome(ly stupid).
i got you by the balls now you cant escape this one.Dude, as I said earlier if you really have an iron-clad argument then the best thing you can do for it is actually cite the text you're talking about. You seem to want to imagine that I'm actually trying to get out of arguing about this. Are you really that stupid? When Lumen can't answer a question he just drops out for a few weeks. I've been here for a hundred posts or so.
@sarkeizen so how would i go about citing say, a zinc-carbon cell,s lifespan,or a lithium ion cell,s lifespan.easy,i just point to the rules@EOA - so again, does this mean I will get a textbook cite. So far you have cited no rules. Just one forty-word definition which was not very helpful and you absolutely refused to clarify.
a textbook doesnt know the differences in size of batteries so they give us a set of rulesA textbook doesn't "know" anything - it's a book - just in case you haven't read one.
what, you think im trying to be funny?Of course you are, you type so carefully and deliberately badly. It's difficult to believe you aren't trolling.
ive cited the rulesWrong. The only thing you have cited is exactly, and precisely forty words off an internet site. Nothing at all about calculating anything, nothing from a textbook, virtually nothing at all.
@sarkeizen well if you bothered to seriously hunt for karpen-crapster info you wouldve seenSomeone doing your homework for you? Sadly I'm not interested in attempting to make your point for you. :D
why dont these analysis documents appear in textbooksSo you're now saying that textbooks DON'T predict your batteries that run forever. Which is it?
i dont want to post any of them here as i dont want people jumping ahead of my own researchDude, like every other person on OU it's almost assured that you have nothing worth selling. Anyway your point was about textbooks.
l give you this table on the properties of platinum: nature.berkeley.edu/classes/eps2/wisc/pt.htmlYou seem intent on not making your point. Does this say that a battery can last forever? If so, you should be able to create a FORMAL logical argument that gets you to that point.
permanently stable for uhm,eternity.Assuming some things that you are not qualified to assume. :D
@sarkeizen qualified? Lol! It is you who are assuming sir.you assume that the battery internals change over time.Not really. The only thing that seems a reasonable assumption at this point is that textbooks don't really predict your eternal battery. At least you have provided pretty close to zero evidence for that.
you assume that the internals will change over the course of the next 30million years.No, I'm saying that you have assumed that they don't. Again, logic is one of those things that is useful to have as evidenced by your pretty severe lack of it.
i declare with totalitarian certainty that they abso-f@&%ing-lutely will not change one iota over the next 30million yearsWell we've visited the fact that you're all about totalitarianism of a sort. No conversation can be had that you don't recognize. No textbook cites can be given, to anyone ever for any reason even if the person is arguing that textbooks say something. 30 Million years isn't forever and you can assert all you want, beat people with truncheons who question you or whatever your particular turn on is but...
@sarkeizen not my totalitarianism, natures totalitarianismPlease, lie to someone else. If that's what you meant then you accidentally misspelled 'nature' as the most popular word in the English language.
if you dont get off your exceedingly lazy ass and build it or have somebody build it for youYawn. Again there would be no test to satisfy your assertion.
the internals dont changeAgain, you're not qualified to make that statement. Like many dictators you will, at some point learn that you may do all the violence you wish to those who question you but it doesn't stop you from being wrong.
@sarkeizen,,yawn,,youre basicly sayingNot necessarily. Again logic appears to be the thing you were terribly deprived of.
try?Nope, so far no textbook cites. Your promise, multiple times over was to cite a textbook, in fact your whole thesis is "the textbooks say/predict...". Without a textbook cite, from now on I just quote your first word, and ask for a cite. :D Since the conversation moving forward does not matter to you this won't change your behavior but it will illustrate that you are not interested in moving your own argument forward. Which is pretty close to the formal definition of a troll. :D
yawnYour promise, multiple times over was to cite a textbook, in fact your whole thesis is "the textbooks say/predict...". Your words to this effect have been quoted by me countless times. Technically speaking you haven't even made an argument to be refuted but please don't stop avoiding your argument on my account. Keep on demonstrating your trollishness and lack of concern about progressing to your stated point. :D :D I've got plenty of time before I reach "hero".
ho-humSo far no textbook cites. Your promise, multiple times over was to cite a textbook, in fact your whole thesis was "the textbooks say/predict you can make a battery which will run and ipod like device forever". As demonstrated earlier it's pretty doubtful that textbooks say any such thing. Without a textbook cite, you don't have an argument to refute. Which I suppose helps you keep your self-esteem since there is no argument to destroy as long as you keep hiding it. So I guess I can understand that. :D
imSo far no textbook cites. Your promise, multiple times over was to cite a textbook, in fact your whole thesis was "the textbooks say/predict you can make a battery which will run and ipod like device forever". Yet nothing from a textbook has been cited. As demonstrated earlier it's pretty doubtful that textbooks say any such thing. Without a textbook cite, you don't have an argument to refute. Which I suppose helps you keep your self-esteem since there is no argument to destroy as long as you keep hiding it. So I guess I can understand that. :D
iSo far no textbook cites. Your promise, multiple times over was to cite a textbook, in fact your whole thesis was "the textbooks say/predict you can make a battery which will run and ipod like device forever". Yet nothing from a textbook has been cited. As demonstrated earlier it's pretty doubtful that textbooks say any such thing. Without a textbook cite, you don't have an argument to refute. Which I suppose helps you keep your self-esteem since there is no argument to destroy as long as you keep hiding it. So I guess I can understand that. :D
hey @ maybemade if youre prepared to up the prize to £150000 i,l do exactly that with the ipod no problemo :-).i can do it publicly or privately for you its up to you.if i tell sarkeizen to go consult a college textbook and build a zinc-electrode concentration cell at standard or ambient pressure and temperature he has no problem with it.if i tell sarkeizen to go consult a college textbook and build an oxygen-electrode concentration cell at standard or ambient pressure and temperature he has a problem with it,i dont know why sir,he keeps demanding citations when i already cited the rules applicable to all such type of cells.he is behaving in an unusualy rebellious manner.
heres a variation of quenco that anyone can buildso i just need sulfuric acid and platinum? how would i set this up, and isn't pure platinum exceedingly expensive?
iSo far no textbook cites. Your promise, multiple times over was to cite a textbook, in fact your whole thesis was "the textbooks say/predict you can make a battery which will run and ipod like device forever". Yet nothing from a textbook has been cited. As demonstrated earlier it's pretty doubtful that textbooks say any such thing. Without a textbook cite, you don't have an argument to refute. Which I suppose helps you keep your self-esteem since there is no argument to destroy as long as you keep hiding it. So I guess I can understand that. :D
bySo far no textbook cites. Your promise, multiple times over was to cite a textbook, in fact your whole thesis was "the textbooks say/predict you can make a battery which will run and ipod like device forever". Yet nothing from a textbook has been cited. As demonstrated earlier it's pretty doubtful that textbooks say any such thing. Without a textbook cite, you don't have an argument to refute. Which I suppose helps you keep your self-esteem since there is no argument to destroy as long as you keep hiding it. So I guess I can understand that. :D
playThe problem is..so far no textbook cites. Your promise, multiple times over was to cite a textbook, in fact your whole thesis was "the textbooks say/predict you can make a battery which will run and ipod like device forever". Yet nothing from a textbook has been cited. As demonstrated earlier it's pretty doubtful that textbooks say any such thing. Without a textbook cite, you don't have an argument to refute. Which I suppose helps you keep your self-esteem since there is no argument to destroy as long as you keep hiding it. So I guess I can understand that. :D
whereThe problem is..so far no textbook cites. Your promise, multiple times over was to cite a textbook, in fact your whole thesis was "the textbooks say/predict you can make a battery which will run and ipod like device forever". Yet nothing from a textbook has been cited. As demonstrated earlier it's pretty doubtful that textbooks say any such thing. Without a textbook cite, you don't have an argument to refute. Which I suppose helps you keep your self-esteem since there is no argument to destroy as long as you keep hiding it. So I guess I can understand that. :D
outThe problem is..so far no textbook cites. Your promise, multiple times over was to cite a textbook, in fact your whole thesis was "the textbooks say/predict you can make a battery which will run and ipod like device forever". Yet nothing from a textbook has been cited. As demonstrated earlier it's pretty doubtful that textbooks say any such thing. Without a textbook cite, you don't have an argument to refute. Which I suppose helps you keep your self-esteem since there is no argument to destroy as long as you keep hiding it. So I guess I can understand that. :D
This thread still going, I was surprised to see that. Any thing that can be measured?I can't even get people to clearly state their claim.
Mark
@markdansie i cant even get people to clearly measure a common concentration cell.they wont.they dont want to.This might have something to do with:
is not valid then what test in your opinion is valid.@EOA It's not my opinion. How can a finite, purely observational test can establish an infinite outcome? You might as well say: "If the sun burns for 96 weeks then it will burn forever".
b)you still apparently think that im joking with youI think you are either a very big idiot or a very big troll.
when i told you a hundred times that this concentration cell obeys the rules set out in text-books to a T.those rules are a)the rules of concentration cells.why did you still not apply those rules to this cell@EOA you said you would cite a textbook. So far you haven't. Hence I have no rules to look at. Therefore your position is unreasonable. QED. Please be less stupid in the future.
@sarkeizen you make me laugh man.so i sell you a......load of crap. Yes that's what you keep trying to sell here. Doesn't seem like many are buying though. Wake me when you can cite a textbook.
@sarkeizen..wake me up when you can work out how a concentration cell works..duhhhh..doh!@EOA - that was your job. You were supposed to provide textbook cites on how this lasts forever but you don't seem capable. Why is that?
@sarkeizen yet im capable of......attempting to get other people to do your homework. Yes you consistently ask me to research your point for you. Which you said is plainly found in any textbook. So either:
idono @sarkeizen you sound highly suspect.why would someone want a quotasJust a cite EOA, that's what's been asked for and you said you would provide and you haven't.
they was refered to a generalized textbook to calculate all relevant issuesIf this was true then you could provide a formal logical argument (a series of steps where each one is forced by the prior one) which would reach your stated conclusion (you can create a battery which will run an ipod or ipod like device forever) using only the resource you claim you have referred to. However, you haven't done so even though you have been asked repeatedly.
@sarkeizen its just the electrochemical variant of the following process.thats all it is.nothing more nothing less..totaly reversable.Which is not a formal logical argument, which of course makes my point. If the books were so clear, then you could create a series of steps each of which is forced by the prior one which brings us to the conclusion that you can build a battery which will run an ipod like device forever.
Two similar and parallel Ag-O-Cs surfaces in a vacuum tube ceaselessly eject electrons at room temperature. A static magnetic field applied to the tube plays the role of "Maxwell's demon". The thermal electrons are so controlled by the magnetic field that they can travel only from one Ag-O-Cs surface to the other, resulting in collections of positive and negative charge on the two surfaces, respectively, with an electric potential between the two surfaces. A load, a resistance outside of the tube for example, is connected by wires to the two surfaces, continuously receiving electric power from the tube. The ambient air is a single heat reservoir in this situation, and all of the heat extracted by the tube from the air is converted to electric energy, without producing any other effect. The authors believe that the experiment is in contradiction to Kelvin's statement, and that the famous hypothesis proposed by Maxwell about 140 years ago is eventually realized.The paper:
no imagination required @sarkeizen,just integration.because the oxygen activity potential difference is directly tied to the work function difference at ordinary pressure,compensation must occur in order to flatten the potential.thus a karpen system will only come to rest when a pressure difference is maintained between the two electrodes.here Eo2=oxygen activity potential.p=gas pressure:Yawn. Still no formal argument. Still no cite. So still you fail.
errm @sarkeizen..formal argument?fail?Yep. You have failed to make your point.
A karpen cell will absolutely not stop until you maintain a pressure difference between the two gaseous electrodes.this you can test .this you can check.this you can 1)see,2)feel 3)touch 4)test"Running forever" can not be felt, seen, touched or tested (empirically).
5)mathematicize.thisIf so, you have not provided a formal argument to this point. So you have failed to make your point. There is no cite which explicitly states your point, nor is there a formal argument presented which goes from what was stated in a cite to force your conclusion.
@ sarkeizen is revolutionary..we are entering a new age with new energy sources.money is to be made.Nope.
running long enough can be tested @sarkeizen.Sure, if you run something forever it can be said to run forever. Anything less is not exactly demonstrating forever as forever is infinitely larger than any finite period.
.my point is you cannot divorce any electrode potential from its work function:E=wf + contact potential with electrolyte(wikipedia).thus to prove wikipedia is correct we can take e.g. two copper electrodes,one rough,one smooth and shove them into copper sulfate solution under argon or nitrogen and get a measurable voltage and current.same with gaseous electrodes.No cite, no formal logical argument. Still a fail.
@sarkeizen..i have to disagree with you.Only because you are one of the biggest logical morons (or trolls) I have ever met. People who live in bus shelters, who put "mindless gibbering" on their list of skills on their CV have a better grasp of logic than you do.
if we have to prove that wikipedia is correct in its assumptions then it becomes a formal argument.You have to first learn to construct a sentence that makes sense. That one doesn't.
Lol @sarkeizen.wheres your demand for a promised citation gone to?Not every post needs to remind you that you have failed, failed, failed in this respect. :-D
That was your strongpoint you should stick to it but stooping to tantrums is a new lowpoint for you.What tantrum? I was just being descriptive. You really show zero understanding of how to formulate an argument...deliberately or otherwise. I've said things like this before, many times.
wikipaedia,s mathematical work function formula is correct whichever way you want to look at it.it can be put to the test.Yawn. If you have a cite from a textbook, and a FORMAL LOGICAL ARGUMENT - that is, a series of statements where each one is FORCED (which means there is no possible other conclusion) by the prior one. That leads inexorably to your conclusion - that someone can construct a device that can run an ipod forever. Then I for one would love to see it posted here...
Except i didntDo you have any other tactic than "I really want to pretend I did what you asked"? If not, you might as well not talk anymore, ever, to anyone. (Just to be on the safe side :D)
i provided the audience with...nothing like what as asked for.
I think theres a misunderstanding between you and me @sarkeizen.im trying to prove that the wikipaedia formula is correctSorry. Not interested. Unless you can provide a textbook cite for your assumptions (never done) and then a formal logical argument which reaches your conclusion "It must be possible to create a device that will power something like an ipod forever"
Perhaps this article will make things a bit clearer for youCan you make a formal logical argument from this article which reaches the conclusion that "Textbooks say we can create a device that will run an ipod-like device forever?"
yes yes yesDoubful
Those guys showedHyper Fail!! Right out of the gate. You might as well have said: "My uncle Sydney made a perpetual motion laser". You have to cite the portion of the paper - which you won't because you probably haven't read anything other than the abstract - and write a series of statements which force the conclusion. No cites, no series of statements == You are a failure.
hey you can suss it out in 3-D if you want to check it out man.shove it in your lab,change the pressure,tweak the voltage,check the time,check the temperature..it,l all fit exactly to a T per what-im-saying.Again, when you lose the argument you fall back to "But you need to build it". Even though this is in direct contradiction to what your original argument was. Sheesh.
but we know you wont @sarkeizen,disgusting man.If you say, "textbooks prove" and I say "I doubt textbooks prove". Only an exceptionally stupid person would argue that building something proves their point about textbooks.
you force me to spill my secrets out here then you shout,'not enough'It's not "not enough" it's that you have given nothing. Anyone can say "Oh this journal article proves X"' only someone who knows what they're talking about can take the article and step you through a logical argument where you have no choice but to agree. Hence I think that you are either trolling, or know that books don't support your position or simply don't know what you're talking about. Let me know which one it is.
.your a disgrace to the energy movements.You mean the free energy movements? The movements almost entirely peopled with the gullible, math-poor and stupid? I'm not sure their opinion is really all that meaningful.
except that that little journal was but one out of thousands coming to the same conclusion you silly manSame problem. No cite. No argument. Hence you are failing.
.in fact so many journals came to the same conclusionIf so it should be easy to cite one and provide a series of irrefutable steps in plain english but you keep refusing to do so.
its now officialy textbook materialThen you should be able to show me a textbook with the statement and mentioning how it would power something forever or provide a formal logical argument to this effect.
and dont insult our FREE-energy website with its FREE-energy seekers neI didn't insult them. I described them. Accurately. Free energy movement collectively has about as much skepticism as a child who believes in Santa.
.its here for a reason.I agree, it's here because we have people who are idle, insecure, uninformed and uncritical.
no @sarkeizen.you will see that i am correct in a laboratorySo wait...at first you said that I don't need to do anything but look at textbooks.
this is a monumentous occasion just as we pass into the new year.im officialy the first guy to bust the mystery of karpens crapster into mainstream frei-energie website world,and from there into the established laboratory world.i bridged the gap.I don't think anyone's buying what you're selling anymore as you have taken up permanent residence in fantasyland.
lol.notice how you purposely ignore my last post about the thermodynamics of the fantasyland system,which are in total agreement with textbook thermodynamics.something tells me you are going to be very quiet from now on @sarkeizen.Since you haven't cited anything or provided a formal logical argument. "total agreement" (whatever that means) is still taking up residence in fantasyland with "a device that powers an ipod-like device forever".
i dont see how the commonest,most widespread rules governing concentration cells can possibly be informalIf it's a well established rule in textbooks. Then you need a textbook cite to make your argument that "all we need is textbooks". Until then you fail. Keep on failing there troll-boy.
and while youre at it please explain your accusation of informalityI did, several times. A formal argument is a series of statements which reach a conclusion. Each statement following the first one is FORCED by the prior. In other words it is absolutely impossible to reach any other conclusion. No series of steps, no formal argument. QED. Most of the statements you make are so incredibly broad they can not be said to force anything. Thus again, no formal argument.
series of steps,except there is only 1 step manThen the only thing that will demonstrate "The textbooks say that you can build something which will power an ipod-like device forever" is a textbook cite which says words to the effect. Otherwise you need a textbook cite AND a series of steps leading to your conclusion. Anything else is begging the question. QED -> You fail to make your point.
,dont make me angry nowDon't make me laugh.
i cant give you more than one step to such a common themeAny argument that can not be broken down into steps is, by definition an assumption. You can assume that you can build things that will power something forever in exactly the same way you can believe in an invisible, insubstantial dragon in your garage.
except i won this race looong agoNope. Sorry, that's quite impossible. The argument at hand is whether or not the hypothesis "A device can be built that will power an ipod like device forever" can be supported purely by textbooks. If that was the case, the formal argument and cites would be in the thread. There is no other way to make this point. Now you can pretend you've made the point. The same as you might pretend there's a invisible, intangible dragon in your garage.
step 1: im a teacher in college and i demand construction of a e.g. hydrogen electrode concentration cell from you,the studentStep 1a: I tell you to go away troll-boy.
my my.now one thing is crystal clear: i AM a teacher in your caseNot really. So far you have not demonstrated, to me that you have anything to teach. You have spent most of your time avoiding the question and dodging something you implied was very easy. As I've stated you're likely a troll or a very stupid person. Neither I'd consider taking a class from.
@sarkeizen.you know nothing about concentration cell college basicsSo far there's no reason to believe you know anything pertinent to the discussion concerning textbooks which somehow prove you can build an everlasting , 2nd law violating ipod charger. That is the point at hand. Please try to keep to it.
let me try again:lets pretend that you are a student,im a teacher,and i demand you build a hydrogen concentration cell and a copper concentration cell for examsConsidering what I know of you I don't believe you have anything to teach. So I kick you in the groin many times and leave the class. You howl and writhe with pain on the floor and just before you black out you wish you had taken a logic course from me...
do you agree with the logic of this hypothetical demand or notSince what I posted above is a potential consequence of being in that situation which clearly ends without proving your point. We can assume that your next step can not force your conclusion - that is if it is at least slightly possible for me not to stay in your class. Then there is a possible alternative to your next statement. Hence it is not forced. Ergo you have not made a formal logical argument.
so that i can proceed to uploaded textbook citationsDude you have lied about this so many times. If you wanted to upload a cite, if you had a cite that made your point then you would likely have posted it by now.
ok so lets say that the teacher is not me.lets say that the teacher is someone else,like say for example the teacher at princeton varsity,and you the student.lets say this to avoid your personal dislike of my classroom and to avoid potential violence.lets say that the princeton teacher now makes a sudden demand of you to construct a hydrogen concentration cell and copper concentration cell for the fun of it.How can someone demand that I do something for the fun of it? Isn't that the antithesis of "fun"? Is fun mandated where you live?
why dont you just pretend that you think it is soUh, so you want me to pretend that one of your premises follows another when it doesn't? Why not just pretend I already pretended this and just provide cites to textbooks? Or better yet pretend that you're wrong and admit it. Those are all pretty much equivalent actions.
you,re holding me and the audience up now,the letters E.O.A. come to mind.Yawn, no you're only imagining that I'm holding you up. There is nothing actually stopping you from posting a cite to a textbook which proves your case. You tried this lie before remember? You pretended that if I did something you would post something? Sorry not interested.
im not going to show one single quoteI know.
until you answer that questionThen you have disproved your argument. If the point was "Reading textbooks alone can demonstrate that X is true" clearly your position is false. Since being part of your imaginary soap opera is not reading a textbook. QED.
except it was you who requested a 'series of inescapable steps to force a conclusion'And which you haven't provided.
@sarkeizen.clearly you are either unwilling or incapable of reaching a consensus for step 1If consensus is required then your step does not force anything. So according to you I showed that "Step 1" can not force any conclusion that makes your point. If I can come up with some other outcome from "step 1" then it isn't an "inescapable step" now is it? QED.
And now you want to be my english teacher as compensation for your inability to be a good science student?pah!No I just said that you kind of suck terribly at English. Is it deliberate? Seems like it.
l wait here for your 1)answer and 2)explanationThe answer is, it can be shown that it doesn't force YOUR conclusion. If it did, then no other outcome would be possible. However it *is* possible to have a different outcome than the one you want. Hence the next "step" is not *forced*. QED.
.since you want to be the expert on formatting logic,we wait for your reply from the mouths of the real mcoy...So seriously is the crappy English deliberate? It seems like it is.
how can step 1 force anythingi) Socrates is a man; all men are mortal
the way you make it out is as if i have to force you to answer before a conclusion can be forced .youre hardly playing your own game fair by refusing to participate in itNo I'm being perfectly fair. Asking someone to pretend something true is false isn't fair. Oh hey...that's you. :D
and seriously,must you always deflect attention away from your incompetency onto my english when you feel cornered?Actually I talk about your horrible English when I'm cornered and when I'm not. When I'm hungry and when I'm not. When I'm happy and when I'm not. See I pretty much think anytime is a good time to talk about someone who has such deliberately ridiculous language. Besides why are you so defensive about it? I simply asked why are you affecting such poor language? One would think if one wants to be understood one would make an effort to be clear. You clearly are making an effort to be unclear.
superman is a man.not all men are mortal.socrates is a man.socrates may not be mortal. you see,i unforced your conclusionNope. Are you really not getting it, or is this just more trolling?
My english is fineI was just asking an honest question. Why do you deliberately make your English so very poor? It's like being in a meeting with someone wearing a fake moustache. Everyone knows it's fake and makes the wearer look stupid. I just thought it would be an interesting story.
your statement example forces nothingThen you should be able to show that if you accept i) then how ii) does not follow but you can't. However I do realize that I've cued you up for your usual song-and-dance where you pretend that you've demonstrated something.
my statementCan't demonstrate anything useful to the conclusion you have stated. If it could, it would force some related statement. Since it can not force any related statement it can not advance the argument (or your argument is far, far, far, far, far, far weaker than you seem to assert it is.
your graduation from 2nd law lawyer to kindergarten english master happened very suddenlyNot really. I suppose I could comment about how you don't actually read my posts but I think that's pretty much obvious now. I've commented on how bad your English is for ages. So why not let me in on why you post here with your fake moustache?
quit fooling and just launch the debateUh...I thought you said that textbooks were enough to prove, unquestionably that one can create a device which can run an ipod-like device forever. I disagree with this point, I think it's very likely untrue and nowhere near as clear as you are implying.
all you have to do is answer step 1Is step 1 a question? It wasn't phrased as a question. If your English was better...
for us.your holding us(me and the audience)...up.Nope. It seems pretty clear that you have conceded my point. Why would we need to discuss "step 1" if it's clear that it's useless.
step 1 doesnt require debate.And yet you said...
step 1 is answered and then debatedApparently step 1 does require debate....let me know when you figure out what you are saying.
it requires common sense.since you refuse to use common senseI simply want to use logic, you do not. Your argument appears to be that we only need textbooks to determine that we can construct a device which will run something like an ipod FOREVER. If you have changed your argument, please let me know.
im not prepared to work here for nothingDon't worry, you're not prepared to work at all. If you were, you would have provided a textbook cite which you seemed to imply was easy to find. So if you refuse to do something easy. It's reasonable to believe that you are not willing to do any work.
step 1 is crucial to determine your sanity and competency beforehandEither step 1 is an argument or it's irrelevant. If it's part of your argument then it forces something. That's a definition you understood at the beginning. So come back when you can make something that complies with the requirement you agreed on. If you want this to become yet another thing you lied about...well that's ok too.
and step 1 is a question.a yes or no question.It wasn't phrased like one. Please use English and phrase it like one.
@sarkeizen.do you think it is logical for a science teacher to ask a student to build a hydrogen concentration cell and a copper concentration cell for exams..See I knew you were faking all the lousy English. Why bother? Do you really like wearing the fake moustache so much?
@sarkeizen.it forces your COMPETENCYYou said yourself, that it can be answered yes or no and that from there the answer is debated. Right?
.it forces our ability to determine your ability to understand what is about to be quotedi) A cite is what is requested, not a quote. There are at least twenty posts on that subject alone. About three give you an example of how to do it and explain what makes it necessary.
e.g. 'ducks lay eggs in winter'directly from a textbook then you go and tell me that that is insufficient as proof.Like a lot of things it would depend on what is actually meant - which is why a cite is needed. Many, if not all ducks lay eggs when it is warm. So the question would be one of what is meant by "winter" - i.e. time of year or "in the winter in the wild" or "in the winter in this part of the world" and what is meant by "ducks" i.e. "All ducks", "some ducks" and what is meant by "lay" i.e. "can lay", "do lay".
can i ask you a question @sarkeizen?You just did. :)
but i got no reply.Actually you did. You just don't like the reply.
do you think it is logical for a science teacher to ask a student to build a hydrogen concentration cell and a copper concentration cell for exams @sarkeizen..Is this going to force something that is absolutely necessary to make the argument "It's possible to learn, strictly by reading textbook to make a device that will power something like an ipod forever"?
in your case yes @sarkeizen.your answer will definitely help the audience forceAre you saying it forces something that is absolutely necessary to make the argument "It's possible to learn, strictly by reading textbook to make a device that will power something like an ipod forever" or that it "helps" something stupidly vague and poorly defined?
no no.im saying it will force the audienceSo it doesn't force anything about the argument "You can show that you can build an ipod charger that will work forever just from reading textbooks"? So it's irrelevant to proving that point. Doesn't that, to you seem like a distraction from the point? Isn't it logical for me to ignore questions which are not relevant to the point?
it forces everything about the argument...and just a few posts ago when I asked if it forced anything about the argument. Which is, in case you need reminding "It is possible to learn how to build a device which will power an ipod like device forever strictly from textbooks". You said "no". It's right up there in the post history if you don't believe me.
your validityYou're going to have to be clearer because in English that really doesn't make any sense. People don't have a quality "invalid" unless you're talking about someone who is physically crippled.
therefore your case about the argumentDude. Are you really that stupid? I suppose you are, or just that much of a troll.
im ready to give you all the citations you ever dreamed of.all the quotes.all the logicYou are likely lying. You told this lie before and you continue to lie about other things steadily eroding your credibility.
do you think that a battery will work until its flatIf by "flat" you mean it won't work anymore then sure but if "flat" means something else then it depends on what you mean.
bombard you with textbook citations as soon as you answer any of themPlease stop lying.
so let me explain how a hydrogen concentration cell runs flat @sarkeizen.it decompresses gas at one electrode and squashes it on the other.after that,its flat.dead flat.incapable of further work ok? Notice it does this when switched on ok(duh..logical).notice it doesnt do jackshit prior to being switched on(duh..logical).in other words its most stable state when switched off is the gaseous concentrations prior to being switched on.and its most stable state when switched on is a gas pressure differential ok?ok @sarkeizen?with me so far?Cite please.
so let me explain how a hydrogen concentration cell runs flat @sarkeizen.it decompresses gas at one electrode and squashes it on the other.after that,its flat.dead flat.incapable of further work ok? Notice it does this when switched on ok(duh..logical).notice it doesnt do jackshit prior to being switched on(duh..logical).in other words its most stable state when switched off is the gaseous concentrations prior to being switched on.and its most stable state when switched on is a gas pressure differential ok?ok @sarkeizen?with me so far?Cite please. Please consult the format I gave you and the many times I explained to you the rationale for it as well as the many times I explained how what you did - is not providing a useful citation. All of which I did using small words no less. :D :D :D
you dont need any more cites.Please provide the requested cite. As per the definition repeated many times, with examples given many times and the rationale given many times. You haven't provided a cite.
maybe you do need more clarity.I need a cite. I've already explained how to do that many times, I've already explained why it's necessary and I've already explained why what you do doesn't qualify.
did my posted links not just explain to you how an electrode concentration cell works @sarkeizen..I need a cite. I've already explained how to do that many times, I've already explained why it's necessary and I've already explained why what you do doesn't qualify.
DID MY POSTED LINKS NOT JUST EXPLAIN TO YOU HOW A ELECTRODE CONCENTRATION CELL WORKS @SARKEIZEN.the species is hydrogen.the solvent is two different work function metals.Look, it would be worth knowing if you're going to cite anything or not. So far your cite count is zero. You have many times said you are going to cite things, and each time I've called you a liar and each time I've been right. I'm not sure why you're ok with eroding your own credibility but hey. Stupider people have posted here before...like just about every true believer in Philips vaporware.
what you wanted was to learn how a certain class of concentration cells power themselves foreverNope. Unless you are the greatest moron who ever lived...which you may be. What I wanted was a textbook cite either DIRECTLY stating the creating of something that will power something forever (which you have admitted doesn't exist) OR a textbook cite on some subject and a formal logical argument stemming from the CITED point directly to the conclusion.
you would think that the fact that anyone can test this would convince you but noWasn't your argument that I don't have to see anything I only have to look at the textbooks? I can go back and show you exactly where YOU say that. Is that not your argument anymore? If so, you just have to say that's not your argument anymore. It's not hard.
.its no wonder hardcastle deserted you.you wont even listen to reproducible evidence!My recollection is that Philip couldn't argue his point to save his life. I told him how information theory/complexity theory kind of kicks his idea in the head. I cited at least one paper and he just went mute. If I were to guess the reason it would be that Philip knows less than zero about the subject.
well since these karpen systems work"work"?! You mean forever? How can you *observe* something working forever in less time than...forever?
then hardcastle has a chance for success,if he can manage to construct the thermionics appropriatelyWhy not say: "He will be able to reconstruct the philosophers stone if he can catch enough unicorn dust?" it's pretty much equivalent.
platinum as your metal surface there and you get a karpen device.also check out www.corrosion-doctors.org/Corrosion-Factors-Cells/corrosion-cells-aeration.htm and substitute corrosion-resistant platinum for all the metals you see there and you get a karpen device.Sadly you are making an assertion that you are incapable of making with authority. The Karpen cell has never been examined in any useful degree. Calling anything a Karpen cell is premature as is saying that it runs forever.
yeah i mean forever man.and ever and ever and ever.like i said,foreverSo how did you observe it lasting forever?
yes hardcastle,and everyone else who are investigating duo-entropy systems have a massive chance of success.Not really. Again it appears to violate information theory and complexity theory both of which are stronger systems than Phillips observation of the Cottingley Fairies.
.constructive?yes @sarkeizen,all these cells ive discussed above are constructable.all of them.Again is your thesis that this can be demonstrated strictly by reading textbooks? That is what you said before. If not, you should say "No you have to build it" or whatever you actually mean. Is this really so immensely difficult for you?
A) i watched it totaly flatten.then i watched it totaly recharge itself.something to take note of?So is that or is that NOT observing something running forever. I'll give you a hint the right answer is capitalized.
B)violate information and complexity theory? But arent these just theories?*sigh* A theory in science is a model which exhibits behavior which is in agreement with known evidence. In mathematics it's something different. It's an area of study which is consistent with axiomatic set theory - in other words you would have to have an exception to ALL mathematics in order for this to be untrue. Something which is unproven, in math is called a "conjecture". Such as the taniyama-shimura conjecture.
C)no.not strictly by reading textbooks.But some complete and total moron who happens to have the same name as you said
no need to observe.its written and predicted in textbooks under section 'electrode concentration cells' .again,do you want to question the credibility of all and every textbook on electrochemistry?So again. Are you abandoning this thesis? Since you are CLEARLY CONTRADICTING YOURSELF. You. Near. Total. Idiot. Troll.
@sarkeizen..A) well its observing something recharging itselfAgain, please state clearly. Did you observe something operating FOREVER?
B)a theory in science is just a theoryHowever it has to be congruent with the majority of evidence. Which is the better definition than the very stupid one you just made. In any case, complexity theory and information theory is using the definition that mathematicians use. There is no room for a proven theorem to be wrong - outside of ZF(C) being wrong which would make all math questionable. Which is why information theory and complexity theory are so much stronger than Phillips fairy watching.
C) it is written AND predicted in the biggest textbookYou said all textbooks. Please cite me one that I can go get out of a library....or say that this is no longer your hypothesis. Your choice. Let me know. Again I'm using the useful definition of the word cite not "quote" not "pretend it's in there somewhere".
A)well i observed a mosquitoDid you observe the battery running forever? Please answer instead of being an obstructionist asshole (again).
B)neither i nor you know what phillip has in front of him so its too pre-mature to determine this assumption.That depends. Are you also saying that Phillip doesn't know what he has? That he has no clue about how his device operates?
so can i use it to do that citeNope. You said textbooks. Not only that but you said EVERY textbook. This should be incredibly easy if you are correct. However you are pretending that this is incredibly hard.
A)can you be more specific?Did you observe it running for an eternal period of time. That's what observing something "running forever" would mean.
im saying you have to ask phillip questions pertaining to phillip.Philip indicated that his machine is equivalent to a maxwell's daemon device. In which case he is either WRONG and doesn't know what he's talking about or it's restricted my complexity theory and information theory. QED.
aww cmon man.wikipedia is very well respected by the crowdYou said "textbook". ALL textbooks. Don't you think you need to have at least ONE textbook to argue that "all textbooks" contain something. You don't even own a single textbook and you are making statements about ALL textbooks?
A) is this a trick question?I don't see how. Either you spent an eternal amount of time observing your battery run or you did not. Please answer.
a real-life maxwell demon is a totaly passive thingWrong. Absolutely nothing about MD necessitates it's totally passive or active (examples of both have appeared in the literature if you actually took the time to read instead of working hard at being the worlds largest moron) So again, Philip appeared to state that his device is in fact a MD device. In which case information theory and complexity theory say he is wrong. Again these are so much stronger than Philips fairy dust. It is more rational to consider him simply in error.
so let me use it ok?You can't use it to support the statement you made. If you want to discuss ANOTHER DIFFERENT statement. fine but first ADMIT you can not support the statement you made. Anything can happen from that point on.
A) see.i knew it was a trick question.who is eternal enough to watch eternityIs that a "No, I didn't observe it operating eternally Or Yes, I did observe it operating for an eternal period of time"? Unlike your questions, you clearly had to be doing one or the other.
B)did phillip appear to state it or did he state itHe said his machine sorts molecules based on their heat. That's what MD did. Your problem is you think "passive" and "active" are meaningful distinctions from complexity theory or information theory...and they aren't. There is no distinction.
I can use it-lookSorry, not interested. If you can't admit that you lost the "Any electrochemistry textbook" argument. That you are unable to support your position with any electrochemistry text. Then I see no reason that you will admit you are wrong in some other argument. When you man up, then we can discuss something else.
A)you didnt answer my question with a yes or no so why should i answer your question with a yes or noBecause your question wasn't collectively exhaustive and you only wanted a "yes" or "no". People who understand logic call that a 'false dichotomy'. Whereas my question IS collectively exhaustive and mutually exclusive. So you have to have either been eternally observing something or you haven't. I just want to know which one. See the difference? Probably not....rofl.
an osmosis membrane distinguishes moleculesPlease provide a cite, from a reputable printed textbook where it is explicitly and specifically stated where molecules are being sorted by heat consuming less energy than gained in the process.
C) i can useNothing. Not interested until you admit that you can't support your original statement because once I cut that one down you'll just switch again. You've only been dishonest with me. So this is simply rational. Your desire to keep this equilibrium only really serves you if I'm right and you're wrong. So please continue as long as you like.
you would think that its perhaps you up against a wall?ROFL. Unlikely. You are the one who has spent about hundred posts trying not to directly answer a simple and obvious question. If all textbooks that you find in places like libraries and bookstores agree and predict an eternally running battery. Then where is one example? You will happily spend a hundred more posts doing the same thing because you can't admit that you can't support that statement. Losing that argument is obviously more expensive to you than just typing evasion after evasion.
A) DO YOU THINK IT IS RATIONAL FOR A SCIENCE TEACHER TO ASK A STUDENT TO BUILD A WIKIPEDIA-BASED OXYGEN CONCENTRATION CELL @SARKEIZEN.(the caps are compensation for leaving out the yes and no)No idea. Now answer my question. Did you actually observe a device powering something eternally?
B)oh so it has to be a kelvin-busting demon to screw up your theory? You couldve just said soI'm just talking about what the literature states. I'd expect you would have read something about such deviced when you decided to lecture on how "passive" devices can't possibly be held to information theory.
C)ive never seen 1 textbook giving an example of a bismuth metal concentration cell.does that mean it doesnt exist?Still trying to squirm out and avoid the question? Awesome, keep it up.
no need to observe.its written and predicted in textbooks under section 'electrode concentration cells' .again,do you want to question the credibility of all and every textbook on electrochemistry?Again, I'd like to hear you actually admit that you can't support this statement you made. If you want to talk about something else. after be my guest
using any textbookThen by all means, go get one and get me a cite...or refuse and admit you can't support your statement. I figure you must have at least ONE lying around the hovel. I mean since you went on and on and on about how it's in any textbook.
A)busy doing thatCan you tell me if you watched the device for an eternal period of time at the time of my question?
B)well if you actualy build and watchYou said..
no need to observe.iSo clearly this is a different argument. Please go back to the argument about citing something from any textbook. If you can't support that argument then just say so.
by all electrochemistry textbooksThen please go get a cite. I could mention that you promised to do this several times. Why so afraid of doing what will a) Make your point, b) keep your word and c) Prove me wrong. Everything is in your favor if you do what you agreed to do. So given that you would get everything you seem to want by doing something you claim is easy but you continually refuse. Then the likely answer is you are lying to me in some way. If you had not lied repeatedly in the past I'd have given equal odds to "Trolling" but now I start to think you don't own an electrochemestry textbook and don't know where to get one.
A)can you tell me why your being such an E.O.A?That would be you. I asked you a simple question and you have attempted to dodge it forever. No reason really why.
B)what happened to B?come back to B and face B @sarkeizen.you must change your theoryExplain, B sounded just like another one of your stupid dodges...so does anything you type...because until today that's all you have done.
C) written E= 0.059/2 log a1/a2 (by sienko & plane chemistry,principals and applications 3rd edition page 304,nernst equation)Wow, was that so hard? Why did it take you months asshole? So now I've actually got something to read yay. Assuming the book exists and I can find one.
A) i had to dodge it.Please answer the question. Did you observe the device operating eternally at the time I asked the question?
you said that a kelvin violation would affect your theoryNot quite. I said that information theory makes Philips belief, that he has created a 2LOT violating MD device highly unlikely. It's stronger evidence than Philips beliefs. Whether that has anything to do with batteries is another matter.
you only made it harder for yourself ya'know.now you have to run around looking for sienko&plane 3rd editionSeriously? How long does it take you to order a book or reserve it from a library? I clocked it at under 10 minutes. You trolled for three months. Asshole.
A)yesAre you saying you spent an eternal amount of time observing the device prior to me posing the question?
B)whoooar! Are you saying that the class of cells discussed here fall more in line with information theory than the proposed quenco?No idea, as you have provided only one cite which I haven't read yet and no useful explanation of the mechanism. However if it's a MD device then information theory says you're probably wrong.
yeah but the phonecall costed youNo. Again the person who made this hard is simply and entirely you asshole.
A)yeahSo you're lying. Again.
wtf man.just when i thought this shit was about to get intrestingYou have made pretty sure that won't happen.
you trip me up again.i dont give a fuck what info theory says,thank god for reproducability thats all im saying.Well if it's against information theory then you (and possibly others ) are probably wrong...repeatedly. Also given that you've lied many times in this thread it's not like your claim of a violation or being reproducible is really worth much.
bullshit.im glad i stalled your assSo in other words you just admitted that you're an EOA. Congratulations, I guess?
i dare you to build and test one,even theoretically.Sorry, daring someone to be stupid isn't really very enticing but it probably works with the local yokels.
@sarkeizen..A)nopeExcept that you just stated you spent an eternal amount of time in a finite period. That is a lie. sorry.
B)thats what im trying to say to you man.info theory is your shit so you should be able to tell us if a wikipedia-cellWhat I said was: You have provided only one cite which I haven't read yet and no useful explanation of the mechanism involved. It would be stupid to claim something is a violation of any theory if the thing in question has been poorly explained and supported.
youre saying that its stupid to build a wikipedia-cell?If the objective is to validate that such a cell would run eternally then yeah that would be exceptionally stupid to build one for that purpose. Anyone who's read Karl Popper could have told you that. It's such a well-known problem in science there's actually a formal name for it.
A)nope.a finite periodI can just cut you off there and say that you just admitted you watched for a finite period of time and therefore you have admitted you did not watch the battery running eternally. So you did, in fact lie...one more time!
can be subdivided into eternal subdivisions of timeA "subdivision" would mean a "period less than the parent period in duration". Since you have just admitted that the parent period is finite. A sub-division can not be infinite.
well i think that the normal rules of concentration cells should apply to concentration cellsSo far you are the only person, that I can see asserting that batteries which last eternally can be built based entirely on existing decades-old knowledge. Clearly the problem is, *do the rules work the way you describe* which is the point of this "discussion" which you have tried very hard to stall. The answer is probably "no, profitis is an idiot".
if i tell you that a certain battery described in the non-fiction part of wikipedia is eternaly powerful then it is technicaly no longer my duty to prove anythingWithout even touching on the idea that Wikipedia has contained fake information (I've removed references to non-existent articles myself) and does today (I have one fake article I maintain in Wikipedia). Your claim is stupid because despite having the word "wikipedia" in it sentence. It is still just making an unsupported assertion. In this case you are asserting something *about* wikipedia or more precisely about the interpretation of something in wikipedia.
A) so what @sarkeizen? Im going to look at it tomorrow again.Are you saying "I lied again, so what?". I think the problem with lying is self-evident. That aside, tomorrow will also be a finite period of time. You can't assert that your observations imply that this will last eternally. QED. As I said before this is such a well known problem we give it a special name in science.
B)no.the rules work the way they describe.Same problem, you can imagine that what you think is a reasonable consequence of the formula but a) You've already admitted that you haven't observed this effect and b) You have yet to give a good reason to believe it.
except that countless other references beside wikipedia mention the same battery thus its not an error anymoreWhich is, of course irrelevant. Unless they all say, clearly that the battery would run eternally. Probably not because you have said that textbooks don't say that. You might as well argue that "Elephant Dung Gives Eternal Life" based on no observation of someone living forever and the fact that numerous sources proclaim the existence of elephant dung. Your desire and talent for missing the point is becoming legendary.
How much interpretation can you get from a name like 'oxygen concentration cell'You have provided exactly one cite, a formula which I am going to read about as soon as my copy of the book gets here. The amount of interpretation that can come from a formula is actually pretty big. Most experimentally derived formulae have been derived under a number of assumptions.
since you wont believe me regardlessIf you provide a cite and a formal logical argument from that cite to your conclusion. I'll accept you as having made your point. So far, in three months of asshole-ish stalling. You have provided exactly one cite.
it really boils down to my challengeYou have challenged me to be as stupid as yourself. Do not be surprised if I don't take you up on being stupid. I've already explained why your challenge is stupid, it can't demonstrate your point.
@sarkeizen..are you aware that werofl...aren't we plural today...moron. :D :D :D :D
Are you aware that we want to cut through the crap and see some evidence?Evidence for what thesis of mine? That textbooks DON'T necessarily predict a battery which runs eternally? How could building anything provide evidence for or against the main thing I've been talking about for three months? Especially when YOU YOURSELF said I didn't need to observe anything (and by extension didn't need to build anything). YOU said I just needed to read textbooks. Right? You said that right? I can quote you again if you like.
mr sarkeizen..thesis sir?The only thesis we are discussing, as far as I know. Is that you told me that textbooks clearly necessitate a battery which runs forever. You said, that nothing needs to be built to demonstrate this. Again, I can quote where you said or otherwise expressed these ideas.
mr sarkeizen..ok sir.you prefer to chat about it then.no problemo.Chat about what? The one thesis that has dominated this "discussion"? What do you think we've been doing? What would you rather do? Demonstrate it? Sure, that was exactly what you spent three months trying to avoid apparently because you're some kind of enormous obstructionist asshole.
mr sarkeizen mr sarkeizen,please calm down sirUh...right. In what way wasn't I calm?
im saying you, have to demonstrate to us,the validity of your kelvin statementWhich kelvin statement and does that mean you have given up on your statement about textbooks necessitating eternal batteries?
A) in a polygraph wayYawn...you're imagining things again troll-boy.
i havent given up my statement,Then we can talk about whatever you're on about when you either provide a formal logical argument for your prior stated position OR admit you can't support your statement. Remember you said that I didn't have to build anything for you to make your argument. I just need to read textbooks. You want me to show you where you said that? Hmmm? No?
why do we have to finish the first point first?So you admit these are two different points? Great.
to the 2nd point,which is in support of the 1st point anyway so technicly we,re still busy with the 1st pointWhat? Is it the same point or a different point? Figure that out and get back to me.
@sarkeizen no theyre all one pointSo if you can show that textbooks necessitate the existence of and ability to build eternal batteries. Are you saying that information theory can still restrict you from building an eternal battery (provided it's a MD device)?
which de-necessitateIn other words if you demonstrate that textbooks do necessitate the existence and ability to build batteries which are eternal. That can still very easily be wrong. Right?
@sarkeizen..wrong.So if textbooks are found to necessitate the existence and ability to create eternal batteries. Then, according to you it doesn't matter what information theory says.
well this is why we need you @sarkeizen..to find a loophole in information theory that will accomodate textbooks,s loophole in the kelvin statement (-:..Nope. You just admitted that the question about information theory is irrelevant. If you need to find a loophole, then it *IS* relevant and the textbook argument is too weak to be supported.
'if there is one hole in the kelvin bucket then all of kelvin spills on the floor'Are you no longer arguing that "Textbooks necessitate the existence of and the ability to create batteries which will run an ipod like device eternally"?
well letsanswer my question please...I get that you don't like losing but you should at least try to be fair.
question answeredNot very clearly. Please state: Are you no longer arguing that "Textbooks necessitate the existence of and the ability to create batteries which will run an ipod like device eternally"?
im going to tell you exactly what im doing @sarkeizen.Probably not.
im no longer arguing my point about textbooks supporting and predicting and mentioning a kelvin violator, im showing it.So are you intending support your point about textbooks necessitating the existence of and ability to build eternal batteries? Or not?
your view is right that building it is certainly the proof that is needed.Not if your point is that "You only need textbooks to show..." which is what profitis said...also if the thing in question is "eternal life". How do you test that *strictly empirically* without taking eternity? Karl Popper and I would both like to know.
beginning over 100years or so ago at the time...when the gullible and uncritical roamed the earth and they congregated and eventually formed the free energy movement and they vowed to make people more stupid every year.
intending support?lol @sarkeizen show me one higher education science textbook that doesnt support the wikipedia cell,the cell that you cant and wont killSo are you going to answer my question? Are you going to support your statement about textbooks necessitating the existence of and the ability to build batteries which can power an ipod like device eternally? Anytime you want to answer clearly. Just let me know. :-) Take your time if you find the question difficult.
whats with your obsession with eternity manYou're the one who brought it up. You said that the battery would power a device continually forever. I can show you where you (stupidly) said that. As that is the statement I took issue with, as long as you are claiming you can support it. That's the statement that I should defeat. The other reason that it's important is your (very stupid) obsession with building things. No built device can validate the claim that it would operate eternally strictly through observation. Yet that is exactly what you continually (stupidly) demand.
,l power your ipod for 80years(im saying this to hopefully chill you out).happy now?Dude, I'm not sure why you think I get excited over your posts. I mean you are really, really, really, really, really, really, really stupid but that's not exactly uncommon. It's the only thing more common than hydrogen. What you have been doing is boring me, day after day of ridiculous twisting and turning. Trying so very hard to avoid being clear, avoid making a useful argument, avoid supporting it properly. I mean I admit I'm amused to keep hammering you into the ground but that's really all I get out of this (and upping my postcount - not far from "hero" now!)
maybe its because you like to hear me repeat myself over and over again?Just told you that you were pretty boring. Anyway, you don't repeat yourself. You always say different things and almost never clearly answer a direct question. If you read the question carefully, moving your lips if you need to. Then fashioned your answer in the same form as the question. You might start sounding coherent. I won't hold my breath though.
how many times must i tell you that it doesnt matter how long the thing lasts-as long as it lasts the lifespan of the ipod right?Not if your argument is "It will last forever". 80 years is exactly one "forever" short of forever. It's simple math. The fact that a battery might last 80 years seems entirely beside both your original statement, quentron nonsense and your point about 2LOT.
you know of any oxford bells that can power an ipod for 80years?No idea, however it's actually unimportant. Your primary point was "Textbooks say it will run an ipod forever", I said you could not support that. Now say you were lying. Fine. I win.
i just challenged you to use textbooks to show us how a textbook battery goes dead and you wont do itWhy would I need to? Since a) It's not the point I was arguing against, b) you agree that it does. c) I'm not making any claims about textbooks. So what's to discuss moron-boy?
@sarkeizen,you wont because you cant.its you who,s being hammered here buddyIt really seems like it's you. Didn't you just admit that I was right about the point concerning "The textbooks say it will last forever". You just said it won't. That would imply "that you cannot support it with textbooks" (unless you want to weaken your textbook argument to the point that it's useless).
,wakeup.i can use a textbook to show you how an oxford zinc-carbon goes flat anytime :-)...and I'm sure your mom is proud. In fact if you put that on your resume. You might get a job at "Mister Donut".
B)my argument was that textbooks support and predict a kelvin-buster.Actually your argument was "textbooks demonstrate the existence and ability to construct batteries which will run an ipod continuously forever". Again I can show you exactly where you say or imply this and I have several times.
C) 3 years is all we need from3 years, 2 years, 1 year, 100 years. It's irrelevant if your argument is still "forever". If it's not, I'd like to hear you say that you can't support "forever". That was what you were arguing so you would lose that one right?
should it decide to go on for eternity then thats its own decision.Your battery is also conscious....it *decides* things? I think whatever you're smoking...you should cut back.
D)huh? E)huh!Your English is pretty bad, I get that. How about formulating questions that aren't simply grunts?
my battery?no no mr sarkeizen.it was my battery.its your battery now.Nope.
in other words you want to interrogate me for saying your battery lasts eternalyNope. You are postulating something: "Textbooks say that batteries that last eternally can exist and can be built". You have said words to this effect many times. I have said that you probably can't support that statement. You have claimed that some observations of yours are evidence to this effect. I've just noted that what you have observed can't support your point as long as it is about "lasting eternally" or about "textbooks". "Your battery" is talking about what you are postulating. I've postulated no battery, just that you can't support your statement. So there is nothing that could be reasonably considered "my battery".
official textbook side of the line @sarkeizen.you must defend the oxygen concentration cell from being branded a perpetual motion device,and fast before somebody builds one.Sorry, your babble means nothing to me. Explain it in terms relevant to SPECIFIC things that I've been talking about.
official textbook side of the line @sarkeizen.No idea what that means. Again. You have postulated something about batteries that will last eternally. This is what I take issue with. If you want to discuss something else, well you are setting up a pretty poor precedent aren't you? Why would anyone, anywhere ever want to talk to you about anything when you won't answer a simple question or admit when you are mistaken?
step into my domain for once"stupid" isn't really a domain I'm interested in knowing more about.
avoid using the words oxygen concentration cellI'm not avoiding using the words "oxygen concentration cell". You've just been such an incredibly enormous obstructionist hyper-asshole that the conversation (if you can call it that) never gets close to needing the particular technology you consider to be instrumental in creating an eternal battery.
A collectible for $5000? :o
What price would you sell the first proved 2nd law violators for?I guess the same price for the first square circle or true falsehood.
They come in a presentation box with a test certificate and a certificate certifying they are a limited edition.Seriously? I mean I could point out all the stupid there but ask yourself this. Philip has your knowledge of marketing, in the history of Quenco. EVER been right? You made a few hundred dollars on caricatures when you thought you would make a few million.
In any case I expect that professionals and universities will be the main buyers as it would cost them at least $5,000 to make their own.I expect you will not sell all 100. Care to wager?
I guess the same price for the first square circle or true falsehood.Seriously? I mean I could point out all the stupid there but ask yourself this. Philip has your knowledge of marketing, in the history of Quenco. EVER been right? You made a few hundred dollars on caricatures when you thought you would make a few million. I expect you will not sell all 100. Care to wager?
Sure, contact me via my website contact form with your name and legitimate contact details and we can arrange a bet.Why would you need my contact info to bet with me here? I read over your posts on that moletrap place you talked about and I don't see where you asked for any of their real names and addresses. Perhaps you can give me a quote? Oh and hey isn't this some of the same info you demanded from the owner of this website so that you could sue me?
sarkeizen wont accept your betActually it's MY bet moron-boy and it looks like Philip is going to weasel out of it just like he has with other people. He's going to put an arbitrary restriction on it just like he's done elsewhere. Then he's going to artificially inflate the importance of that restriction. "Oh I only bet with people who own an elephant. I would love to bet with you but you just don't have an elephant." Of course he won't say "elephant" he'll appeal to arbitrary and abstract concepts like honor (not to be confused with honesty) and bravery.
he wont even accept my challenge about...being stupid. Yes. I confess fully, that I don't engage in being stupid nearly as much as you do.
geez calm down @sarkeizenYou keep thinking you're exciting. You are continually incorrect.
i am?yes.
its incorrect to ask for evidence of the kelvin statement in a textbook cell? Even on paper?@sarkeizen?No it's incorrect to think you are doing much above boring me.
uh-huh so you dont think its incorrect to ask for evidence of kelvins statement then.now that thats cleared can you provide it in this case then please @sarkeizenYou need to re-think how "no" is used in English. As I said earlier. Your other point etc.. isn't something I'm interested in talking about until you clarify your point concerning textbooks necessitating eternal batteries.
lol! @englishmaster- sarkeizen.this discussion has become a joke man.Yes, you made it a joke by being an EOA.
im asking you to prevent a textbook device from being branded perpetual motionSorry. Don't care. You were the one who made the statement about eternal batteries. Which I cornered you on in two posts and you spent months backing away from.
and youre asking me to unprevent it from being branded perpetual motionNo I'm not. I've asked you to defend a statement which you claimed was true and implied easy to demonstrate. You have spent months avoiding answering some of the most simple and obvious questions and attempting to distract with other questions that are either vague to the point of being useless, irrelevant or invalidate your own point.
then you can show me up as the liar you claim me to beDude. You have admitted to being a liar, twice. I don't think I need to do any more work here.
.catch me out @sarkeizen coz my ego is growing fast here by the minute and i dont like it when my ego gets ahead of me.I'm pretty sure I don't care. Be as stupid as you want troll-boy.
power,my friend,in science,lies in the ability to demonstrate something,regardless of what any book says.Yawn. Except that you don't understand what "demonstrate" means in that context. What science is useful for is to falsify things. You probably think that's what you're doing and you would be wrong in any useful sense. Try reading Karl Popper sometime my exceptionally stupid friend.
to pivot my point ruthlessly to the public,who are the ones which count here at the end of the day.Your English still sucks immensely. By your own logic what the public believes is also irrelevant.
demonstration is numero uno @sarkeizen.for science that is repeatableI don't have a problem with "demonstrating" things. Just that your usage like most things you type is exceptionally stupid. You can demonstrate something that adds zero information to a system. If you add zero information, it's a little stupid to claim that such a thing is science but go ahead argue that something that adds zero information to a system is science. Please.
demos are all powerful.Sounds like you're trying to convince yourself. Not me. However powerful they are. They are not necessarily science, unless they add information. So again they take a back seat to falsifying something.
imagine if andrea rossi,s demo was so simple that anyone could repeat.the effect wouldve been monstrous instead of paltrySo if the variability in the demo was so high that it had almost no likelihood of adding information. Sure it could convince people but it would add no information. So it would not be science - in any useful sense of the term. It would be fooling people.
just to set the record straight about the karpen device and tell it like it isNope. You are here to do almost entirely the opposite. To avoid clear thinking and embrace moronic stupidity.
,an oxygen concentration cell.You've never seen the device, it's only been examined partially by a few people. You can't claim the Karpen cell is any such thing. You've said that when you say "Karpen cell" you don't actually mean the real device. So you're not really setting anything straight. You're actually making things less clear.
until you can prove that you cant observe something eternal,right now in the presentWrong question. It's not that you can't observe something eternal in the present but you can not observe something eternally in a finite period of time. Are you saying you can? Please speak up, if so.
seen the sun,prove that thats not eternal.I don't need to. If you recall you *ASSERTED* that something was eternal and I asserted that you can't support your claim. Which of course I'm correct.
what the public believes is relevant.Not to the point that was being discussed. You claimed that what was in textbooks was irrelevant. However most things in most textbooks are believed by at least one person. So if textbooks are irrelevant than so are most peoples opinions.
A) no need to add info as it supports given infoYou can not support a hypothesis without adding information. You also can not add information without falsifying something. You don't understand what those terms mean. Do you? :D
im going to stick to that statement and use it and abuse it at my free disposal until you can show otherwise.So? People act stupid all the time. I don't feel terribly inclined to stop them. I engaged your statement about textbooks because it was likely wrong and likely resolvable - assuming the other person is debating honestly and not being an obstructionist asshole.
B)see aboveYou can do an experiment without proper randomization and get the same incorrect result. Are you arguing that somehow this makes the statement more likely to be true? If not then, of course repeating an experiment is not as important as adding information. Since you can repeat and add no information but you can add information without repeating. QED. Congratulations, one more thing you are stupid about.
D)nopeActually yeah, you just said that you will happily abuse the information. You also have said that you don't care if experiments are done poorly (which is just another way of saying they add no information). So I think you have proved my point for me. You are here to push a particular idea, not to subject your ideas to any sort of rigor. You ran away from something as simple as looking something up in a textbook. You simply had no ability to construct a logical argument. Dude, face it. You are all about ignorance, not knowledge.
you have to proveNothing. I have exactly one premise. That you can't support your statement about textbooks. So far you've done nothing but prove me right. :D :D
E)you dont need to see karpen,s effort.you can replicate it*ROFL* How do you replicate something that hasn't been observed?
F)my statement was that textbooks predict and support something eternal.whats that got to do with observing it?:D :D You are the one who brought up observing something. :D :D You said that instead of looking up something in a textbook I just need to build it. :D :D However since your thesis was a) about textbooks and b) about something that would run an ipod eternally. You would realize that no number of observations of any kind would support that statement. Hence all "challenges to build" do not necessarily add any information. This is why they suck and why your understanding of experimental design sucks. :D :D :D :D
you need to observe the textbook thats allI doubt that's true. As you say, the textbook won't have: "Here is how you build an eternal battery" in them. So we will end up with you avoiding making a logical argument for probably just as long.
Emeritus Professor of Physics, Steven E Jones has most kindly volunteered to test, with a team he will assemble, a pentode Sebby as described in the $10 experiment, and later I hope he will also do the same for the purpose built 10W Sebithenco.So he's taken time out from his busy schedule of saying that 9/11 was an inside job and historical revisionism?
for fear of repercussions and of being attacked by ranting skeptics like.......... we all know who, on this thread at least.Seriously? Do you think an actual physicist is afraid of me, or anything like me? Again what's more rational that people are not convinced by the evidence or they fear the secret society of 2LOT enforcers.
.a few of these stacked in series will power your ipod eternaly,Sadly we only have your word on this. You said yourself that the textbook won't say that (unless you were lying there too). So you need to make a formal logical argument. Otherwise you lose. As you can not support your point.
at those power levelsThe one's you imagined?...again formal logical argument stemming from a textbook cite which results in necessitating eternal operation or you've lost.
imagined? Try it yourself :-)I can't observe something lasting eternally. So there no experiment to try.
i doubt you will listen to logical arguments.Awww it's so cute when you try to make yourself more stupid. So the only out you have now is to doubt my requirement without even trying. Awesome! I guess that's what you have to do when you're desperate not to lose the argument. :D :D :D
youre screwed.Are you hitting on me?
the above cell is a gas concentration cell of the wikipedia type thusYou don't provide a cite or a formal logical argument. It's the same problem. You said "textbooks necessitate the existence and ability to build a cell that lasts eternally". Now that either means that they clearly and unambiguously state "Oh hey here's how you build a cell that lasts forever" OR you cite a portion of a textbook and then provide a formal logical argument.
@sarkeizen..A)no im hitting youWell it feels like you're tickling so you can understand my confusion.
Wrong. Please recite the requirements of a formal logical argument and explain why your argument meets them. You can't because you simply don't know.
B)my argument is completely formal and totaly logic.
)my argument is totaly logical and formalPlease explain how what you are presenting is a formal logical argument.
answer for sarkeizen:first of all let let me be absolutely clear about what im arguing.textbooks. necessitate.the.existence.of.wikipedia-typeSounds like you changed your argument. Define "wikipedia type" using something that is neither the term "wikipedia" nor a reference to wikipedia. Your prior argument was a battery that would power an ipod-like device eternally.
electrochemical cells.that means textbooks(e.g.college textbooks)can be used to predict and sustain evidence for the existence of electrochemical cells related to electrochemical cells mentioned in wikipedia.Again, you have to use words other than "wikipedia". Also "predict and sustain evidence" is meaningless in English.
,l cut to the chase so that its easier for you to understand:Wrong. You're doing exactly and entirely the opposite. Please define without using the term "wikipedia" nor *referencing* wikipedia.
my answer to sarkeizen: the wikipedia oxygen concentration cell and any related gas concentration cell ONLY requires...blah...blah...blahWill it run an ipod eternally? Why do you keep avoiding this rather obvious and important question?
my answer to sarkeizen: the MORON battery titled oxygen concentration cell and all related batteries do not require kelvin statement to function.they are perpetual motion devices of the 2nd kind.Does this mean they will run an ipod eternally? Please stop trying to worm out of things. Either agree or agree that you can not support your original statement. In which case you could have just admitted that I had you a few months back.
my answer to sarkeizen: affirmativeSo why did you spend all that time being stupid about this?
my answer to sarkeizen: i dont know why.please forgive me.Now we are back to the beginning troll-boy. Provide a formal-logical argument to show that textbooks necessitate the existence of and the ability to create a battery can power an ipod-like device eternally. Your argument must begin and follow from the cite you gave from the Applied Chemistry textbook and must end with your conclusion "a battery can power an ipod-like device eternally".
yay! Sarkeizen has forgiven me!under section nernst equation there in that book you,l see it written that the tendency for an electrochemical half-reaction to occur depends on concentration of the species involved thus we can build a cell with 2 same half-reactions at different concentrations of 1 or more species thus for 2 of same half reactions: 1/2 O2 + 2H+ + 2e- = H2O and differing O2 concentrations on the electrodes at equal pressure we get E=0.059/n log c1 O2(atm a)/c2 O2(atm a) at 25degreesC and since c1 = c2 after transfer of gas we must have pressure change c1(atm a)=c2(atm b) at equilibrium and since kelvin statement cannot apply to a situation where we end up with a gas pressure differential spontaneously without paying for it with a heat differential to begin with we are forced to conclude that kelvin statement need not apply here @sarkeizen no kelvin statement equals perpetual motion.perpetualyLine breaks please. Not even going to bother reading if you don't take this seriously troll-boy.
qUesti0n_|4|_@'pr0fitis'/ cAn_y0u_explain_|plz|_why_y0u_keep_writing_y0ur_messages_in_such_a_weird_manner_|?|/ iT's_n0t_as_easy_t0_decipher_as_standard_n0tati0n_and_i_w0nder_why_y0u}re_d0ing_it_that_way/ tHanks/Seems like an attempt to hide his identity.
if i used that much space then what are you complaining about @marsing
maybe a diagramNot a formal argument. Is this really so hard? If your argument is so strong and obvious. Then it should be simple to write out a series of steps (each separated by a line break) each one forcing the next. However you never can seem to do that. Even though you know this is the definition of formal-argument because it's been discussed many times.
of the wikipedia-typeSorry, don't know what that is.
hey thats not fair @sarkeizen.everytime im niceName once.
and give you something from the textbooksTo date you have given exactly one thing from a textbook, a cite. A cite which you made me wait months for and then you gloated and said that you were glad that you obstructed the conversation in this way. So yeah, "nice" isn't really the word. "Asshole" is more accurate.
the wikipedia oxygen concentration cellSorry. No idea what this is. Please define without using the word "wikipedia" or referencing wikipeda, or drawing pictures. :D
how much more of a bridge from establishment to overunity could a rational individual want?There's only one thing being discussed. Your statement: "Textbooks necessitate the existence and ability to create a battery which will power an ipod like device forever". This requires at least one cite from a textbook and a formal argument. Anything less, and you lose. :D
Which hardly anybody has examined. So again, you can not make this statement with any useful degree of accuracy. :D
Karpen,s battery is related
to wikipedia,s batterySorry, no idea what this is. :D
i challenge you toYawn. Another day another attempt by you to worm your way out of your original statement. As I said before, I'm not interested in other discussions until you can either say that you can't support your original point or you support it. Not to mention that what you propose is so colossally stupid it's hard to believe anyone would think it would settle anything. I'm surprised that even you can't see why.
A)google it to find out what it is and no i dont want to define it without using the word wikipedia.You don't want to support your argument. Doesn't that mean you lose?
B)textbooks necessitate batteries of the wikipedia-type,which can do just that.So far this dream of yours has not be supported by you. Again, a formal argument would do it...and again you said you would...and again you lied. Yay! :D
C)we have the blueprint.we have replicated it.Nope. You can say neither with any useful degree of accuracy. You can not replicate something that has not be sufficiently examined nor can you have a blueprint of it. You can *claim* to have replicated it or you can have something which *purports* to be a blueprint of a device (or I suppose you could have a document which was the *proposed* plan for the object).
lease explain why its stupid to bring a scientist on to support kelvin statement in the wikipedia battery..So you are saying you don't understand why your request to me is somewhere between pretty stupid and extremely stupid?
A)nopeSure does, my argument was that you can't support your position...and you're refusing to support it. You lose.
B)you dont think textbooks support wikipedia?Thank you for admitting you are contributing nothing to the discussion. The question at hand is if *YOU* can/will support your statement. It appears that have now been cornered so badly that you are reduced to arguing the possibility that someone or something else might potentially be able to argue better than you. Which is pretty much admitting that you have nothing to contribute.
C)yup we canSadly, no.
D)no im saying your answer is somewhere between mad and criminaly insaneA post ago you asked me to explain. I simply wanted to you admit that your request is because you don't know why your request is pretty stupid. Again do you know why, what you are asking is stupid or not? Say "no" and I'll explain why you're stupid. Take your time.
.we demand a scientist,NOW*ROFL*
@sarkeizen..before i explode over just this issue.Hopefully you are simply a troll. If not then the world would be generally better without you. So please don't let me stand in your way of you exploding.
A)nope.i win.Hard to believe. You are refusing to support your point but don't let me stop you from being stupid.
B)nope. textbooks support wikipedia which supports eternal batteries.If so, you have not provided and now appear to refuse to provide any evidence to support this imaginary assertion of yours. :D :D :D
C)nopeSadly, logic says you're wrong. Again if you want to be stupid, be my quest. :D
D)nope. WE THE AUDIENCE DEMAND THAT YOU PROVIDE A SCIENTIST TO UPHOLD KELVIN STATEMENT IN THE WIKIPEDIA BATTERY.So are you saying: "No I, profits don't understand how stupid I'm being?" Again, all you have to do is agree with that statement and I'll explain. However if you just want to be an obstructionist asshole. Well I guess that's your choice. :D
people want to know wtf is going on now,they want answersSomething you are very much committed not to provide. You have lied several times, you won't provide a formal argument, you have provided only one unverified cite and you won't even define your terms. Clearly you are the opposite of someone who wants to provide answers. :D
I drop in to check this thread sometimes, any progress other than a lot of rhetoric musings?
Kind Regards
Mark
I think he has deleted the pages on his web site about half a dozen times. Other than post it on his web page for a couple of weeks, I don't know what else he did to advertise his offer. He said he would ship free energy devices capable of producing 10W. If he hasn't built a working one yet and needs money to do that, then maybe he should try an Indiegogo campaign.
PJH is very angry because nobody wants to buy a 'Sebby' for $5000. He has deleted his website again.
I think he has deleted the pages on his web site about half a dozen times. Other than post it on his web page for a couple of weeks, I don't know what else he did to advertise his offer. He said he would ship free energy devices capable of producing 10W. If he hasn't built a working one yet and needs money to do that, then maybe he should try an Indiegogo campaign.
A)my point IS the wikipedia batteryWell your old point was "(most if not all) Textbooks necessitate the existence of and the ability to create a device which can power a ipod-like device continuously and eternally". Which is at least somewhat falsifiable although you have spent enormous amounts of time trying to avoid that. Not to mention lying.
my old point proves my new pointYour old point is unproven...you have provided one cite and no formal logical argument.
my new point is proven:No, not really.
its not a request @sarkeizen.its a demand.a demand petitioned by me and the entire overunity community.So can I take this demand from you and the clown patrol as an admission that you don't know how stupid it is?
its not an admission either @sarkeizen.So you *do* know how stupid your demand is?
stomp,stomp,stomp...@sarkeizen..stomp..Is that "Yes, I profitis know how stupid my demand is?"
cmon @sarkeizen,where are you.where are you.How can I show you that you're wrong if you refuse to answer any questions? I've only asked you two different ones in the past few days and you simply refuse to answer.
in other words you cant show me where im wrongNot until you answer my questions. This would be true of any thesis, by anyone anywhere.
l answer questions directly pertaining to the subject at handAlmost never. :D :D :D This can be proved with quote after quote after quote after quote. You are nearly useless at this. :D
try me @sarkeizen.go on.ask me a question directly pertaining to the workings of the wikipedia device..Well a) You already refused multiple times....and b) that's not the only question at hand, it's actually the provably absolute least relevant question at hand. :D
question pertaining to the wikipedia papersI have no idea what that is. Sorry. You absolutely refused to define whatever that might be. So I can't know if they are relevant to the subject at hand. If you can provide a formal logical argument as to why whatever nonsense you're imagining is important. I'm sure I can address it.
Kindly ask me a question pertaining to it and it alone..If...whatever you're talking about that you refuse to define...is important to the discussion. Then you really haven't said why or made a case for it. I'll be sure to get back to it when you do - which will be never.
its valueless to demand that you show how kelvins statement fits in with an electrochemical cell mentioned in wikipedia?ludicrous.Sorry, you're making an argument from ignorance. It's a really, really common logical flaw. I could show you if you allowed questions about your argument but you don't....oh well.
heres a stupid diagram of nothing relevantThanks. I'll file it with the others.
ask questions pertaining to this cell @sarkeizen.Again, logic says that your argument is of zero value. Are you saying I should spend time on something of zero value? Seems like that would only confuse you further. :D
What is the first sentence in your book under section titled 'nernst equation'.i want to see if you really have that book.The page number you gave me doesn't say "Nerst Equation" on it anywhere. Nor can I find that in the book. Can you post a photo of your book to prove that it is? Please include the page number in the photo. That way I can look it up.
its ignorant to ask you to show evidence of kelvin behaviour in a cell mentioned in wikipedia?preposterous:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
I dont believe youLogic does not care what you believe, sadly I am right an you are wrong but as your religion allows no questions whatsoever of your premise....
please quote us the first sentence under section 'nernst equation' there in your bookI told you, it's not on that page and I can't find it in the book. So I'm beginning to believe you are faking. I can easily show you the page *you* told me it was on but you are completely unable to show me yours isn't that suspicious?
wikipedia batteryNo idea what that is. You have not provided a definition or any information as to why it's important. Again, if I had information I could help. Sadly...because of you....I do not. :D :D :D
and not deviate or distort from the pertinent subject here..That's your job. Seriously, if this equation is on a page I can't find all you would have to do is post a photo of your page - at least I'd have a chance of finding the page by flipping through. That would take you no time at all and would be of zero cost to you but as we both know. You don't have a copy of this book.
@sarkeizen: WE THE LAUGHABLY STUPID DEMANDROFL back to this again...I've said that your argument is a logical fallacy. My ability or inability to state something does not correlate with it's truth.
THE WIKIPEDIA OXYGEN CONCENTRATION CELLStill no idea what this is.
you are lying about that textbook,it was stolen like i said it would be and it didnt arrive.go on,quote the sentence @sarkeizen,prove to us that its the same then i,I can't give you a sentence from a page I can't find. I can give you the first sentence from the page you did reference but the formula that you're talking about isn't there.
l put a photo up ok?deal?:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
A) it correlates directly with truth because you have to defend kelvin statement in order to attack kelvin-attackerNope. That's an argument from ignorance. Again, this is an age old logical fallacy. Look it up, if you doubt it.
B)its the last cell diagrammed in this thread.everything under standard conditions except oxygen concentrations.Sorry, no idea what that diagram represents.
C)does your book have a section titled 'nernst equation'.check in the indexI did. Can't see one.
.D)oh yes i do but i dont believe you doThink about it. I realize that thinking is something you almost never do but. When you first gave the cite and I didn't have the book. Why not post a photo of the page? Then make your argument. It would have got to your point a lot quicker. If you're trying to make your point. Then nothing would have made it more quickly than to post a pic and say: "Well until your copy gets here, why don't we work from this". However you didn't.
@sarkeizen.post a photo of the page so that we can see that your telling the truthYou are the only one who lies here. Not only that you do it entirely without conscience.
then.i,l post a photo after.:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Profitis and Sarkeizen,Seriously? Compared to what? Waiting years for Philip's nothing-machine?
with all due respect, you guys have been bickering like an old married couple for months now. It's pretty tedious...
What would be the best electrolyte for the palladium and silver cell so there would be no reaction to the electrodes?I'm pretty sure the correct answer is "Unicorn". If that doesn't work try "Eye of newt". Seriously, nonsense tinkerers constantly trying to create more and more elaborate ways of fooling themselves.
@sarkeizen: please send a photo of page 304 so that i can see too.its impossible for me to determine if i was lying about that book without evidence.I can see how it would be hard for you to validate that sentence being on page 304 (or even a nearby page) if you don't have the book...it's ok.
.i,l post a photo after.So where's your photo liar?
A concentration cell is a limited form of a galvanic cell that has two equivalent half-cells
here@sarkeizen,without furballs in the way.see,you was lyingLying about what? I have the book, I have page 304 and you saw there is no nernst equation there.
and im supposed to take your word for it @sarkeizen?No if you actually HAD the book, which you don't. You would have been able to find my quote from page 304 - even if it was a different edition or imprint or something. You would be able to find it on another page. You would also be able to find the text in the photo I gave you. It would be easy but you can't.
I mean,i didnt even see the words sienko n planeProves that you don't have the book then. The book doesn't print that text in the page footer or header (at least on 304). Now if you had posted the whole page, we would have seen that but you decided to be deceptive. Wonder why? Oh yeah, you have no problem lying. :D
1) Provide any references related to your diagram / idea, orWell I knew you would get there eventually. :D
Build & demo the thing yourselfYeah about that...remember the claim is that it runs eternally right? So there's no actual empirical test for that right?
quit lying @sarkeizen.sienko nd plane has its name printed clearly on every page at the topWell thanks for admitting you lied...(again)
heres a video of a nickel/silver device under H2: www.overunity.com/downloads/sa/view/down/526/ . The power seen here roughly 0.5 milliamp/0.7v(top of discharge curve) on a few mm2 active nickel-black plating.the silver cathode etched.the electrolyte sodium hydroxide.No photoshopped pages...color me disappointed.
no im disappointedNice to see you've comes to grips with lying about having the textbook
you still wont tell US how kelvin statement fits in with the WIKIPEDIA OX-Y-GEN CONCENTRATION CELL...Uh...because it's a fallacy...I told you this. You can look it up. It's an argument from ignorance.
@sarkeizenWell thanks for confirming that you lied...
lol.im pulling your leg @sarkeizen,lighten up.So now you know you're caught and admit to lying...again this time it's the "just joking excuse". :D
i dont know if i should apologizeSo let me get this straight. You deliberately gave a cite which could not possibly be found and your plan was designed to *only* disadvantage honest people....and somehow you think there's some ethical high-ground left for you? Riiiiiiight :D
i dont see how your inability to show kelvin statement in a stated cell in wikipedia,amongst other encyclopedias is in any way ignorantHave you considered the possibility that you are stupid? :D :D You should. Your point concerns textbooks containing information on batteries that last eternally. My ability to comment on something can not affect what is, or is not in textbooks. QED
A)its a white liePunishing only honest people is a good idea? Riiiiight. How often do you tell yourself that? How often do you try to get people to thank you for being dishonest?
and if i didnt admit it you wouldnt,ve been able to prove it without tremendous effortUh wrong. I have the book in question, you don't. So, not much effort. Sorry if you overestimate what you add to a discussion. I'm sure it's not the last time.
which you claim is non-existant putting you in a category of a liarPlease cite where I lied. Sorry but you lose.
your ability to comment on something definitely affectsNothing to do with textbooks. So it can't actually support or deny your point. Soooooo....again you are making an argument from ignorance.
...definitely affects your case.Not possible sorry. My case is that you can't support your point concerning textbooks or that textbooks do not support your point nearly as strongly as you claim. You need at least textbook cite and a formal argument to make your case (or to break mine). You have neither right now.
@sarkeizen..if you build certain of these diagrammed cells using quality precision laboratory techniques(eg.the palladium/silver/hydrogen electrode concentration cell) you find that they power ipods on an eternal basis at a size roughly the same as the ipod,far superseeding any known possible galvanic action.can you please explain A)why this isSo far, you have provided no evidence that what you claim these cells can do actually happens. Again a textbook cite and a formal argument would be a good start. Until you do, you are essentially asking me to explain how the invisible dragon in your garage can levitate. :D :D :D
..:D.. and can you explain to us why mr tim123 didnt try the nickel/copper/hydrogen device..@sarkeizen..:D.:D.:D......:D..No idea. I wasn't really paying attention. His techno-unicorn mechanics are probably incompatible with your fairydust theories.
:D:D..and you dont suspect that a reversable wikipedia contact potential difference,an type of wikipedia equilibrium potential wikipedia difference,has anything to do with my claimed wikipedia reversable wikipedia equilibrium wikipedia gaseous wikipedia pressure wikipediw difference wikipedia wikipedia wikipedia wikipediaCurrently you have given me no reason to think your claims are anything more than your fantasies. I was at l east somewhat open to the idea that they are real. In return you have repeatedly tried to deceive me by lying about what you would provide, lying about it's content and lying about your cite and I'm reasonably certain you've been lying from the start about what textbooks say, I'm pretty sure you know this too. You've lied about so much in so many places in this discussion that your word is practically useless. Not to mention all of this is in the name of distracting from the point about textbooks you stated months ago.
wrong.the only thing thats going to make my entire discussion of any value is a working device based on my given blueprints and you know it.replicabilityNaivety is so awesome, it makes this great sound when it's crushed. The problem with "a working device" is that it's an implied form of begging the question. A "replicated experiment" doesn't necessitate a working device. There are thousands devices and experiments, replicated multiple times which are also completely, utterly and totally wrong. Just like your argument here. :D
i can integrate a flying saucer into a textbook and it,d still be of zero valueHowever your argument was that your eternal battery was in EVERY textbook. It's much harder to do that than make an amateurish experimental mistake.
only for the sake of discussion do i link up citations of......nothing. Remember you have no textbook citations.
and so lets discuss textbooks then @sarkeizen.modern textbooksPlease provide a textbook cite. I've already demonstrated the ability and willingness to get a textbook even when all you were doing is attempting to deceive me. :D
is a an example of the more modern textbooks dealing with this subjectYay more lying....
lets stick to wikipedia for now?Are you saying you can't make your point from virtually any textbook? ONLY from wikipedia? Because that sure sounds like what you're saying. :D :D :D :D
theres plenty textbooks on catalysisBut you said that your argument can be made from virtually ANY textbook on electrochemistry - you seemed to imply it was true for even high-school level ones....and now you seem to be saying that it can't. Right? :D :D :D :D
so i rely on internet for information on gaseous spilloverI think you mean, you randomly search for stuff to try to snow people with. You didn't even know that you had linked to something that wasn't a textbook. :D :D :D :D Now you're just linking to papers you haven't read.
it works forThen you should have no problem finding a cite in an ordinary textbook :D :D This is what you claimed right? You know the kind I can find in a library or a bookstore, like I did before when I was being honest and you were being dishonest... :D :D
not by a long-shot @sarkeizenI'd say we're pretty close to my goal. See all you have to do is say you can't make your point about textbooks necessitating the existence of and the ability to create a battery which would continuously and eternally running an ipod like device from ordinary electrochemistry textbooks.
how can i say im wrongBecause you can't seem to form a formal logical argument from whatever you imagine an ordinary textbook says. The fact that you don't really understand how physical equations are derived is interesting as well.
my only point,Wrong. Your original point, which I disagreed with, which you reiterated several times was about TEXTBOOKS necessitating the existence of and ability to build batteries which would run an ipod-like device continually and forever. If you want to CHANGE your point or even if you want to talk about something else. Just admit that you can't support it. If you could, why haven't you done so already? Why have you spent so much time avoiding my questions, postulating new unrelated or unnecessary statements, demanding I demonstrate something that you made up and just generally being an all-around asshole?
and you still,to this day,cant seem to get it in your head that im telling you that this class of concentration cells behave as expectedDepends. If by "behavior" you mean "continuously and eternally running an ipod battery". Then "expected" probably doesn't mean more than "expected by profitis the ultra-moron and general asshole to honest people." Now if you mean "expected by the general populace of electrochemists and physicists" then that seems pretty unlikely. For that to be expected by such a large group of people yet there is no direct note of it anywhere in a textbook. No, "Here's how you create a battery that lasts forever" or "Hey we were just joking about the 2nd law" or "If you need to power something infinitely then here's how you do it". You've said this yourself.
Yes i mean by the large grand population of electrochemistsThen it should be no problem to find a textbook which clearly states: "Here's how you make a battery that will run a small device continually and eternally?" or "Here's when you should use an eternal battery design over a non-eternal one." or really any discussion that clearly talks about batteries which can power a device continuously and eternally like they were a real thing.
very hard or impossible to find,does that mean they dont exist?
The nernst formula is infallibleSee this is where I think you are just purely trolling, such a monumental level of ignorance about how physical formulae are derived is crazy.
lol @sarkeizen.you only win whenYou can't support your statement from an ordinary textbook. That's the only statement I'm arguing. Any other argument is simply your own delusion.
Alternative Sebby Diagram to help people understand how asymmetry makes it work.May we begin with a completely symmetric version without the 6eV mesh? Would you agree that such a version will not perform any work on its own? Is it not obvious to you that you must then add any work to that system that you take out?
May we begin with a completely symmetric version without the 6eV mesh? Would you agree that such a version will not perform any work on its own?
Since eV are a measure of energy, inserting a 6eV source inserts a tiny bit of energy. It seems obvious to me that virtually nothing happens.
That is of course what I have always said. The point was before in trying to explain complex surface and interfacial physics the audience did not seem to appreciate the other issues, so when a few days ago someone asked me to explain it again I came up with the dual vacuum diagram, it has the simple advantage that absent the 6eV mesh it is by mere logic determined to be in balance, this takes away the complications.
The significant thing therefore is what happens when you self bias a 6eV platinum mesh off the 5eV collector, think about it, it is obvious.
Since eV are a measure of energy, inserting a 6eV source inserts a tiny bit of energy. It seems obvious to me that virtually nothing happens.
If you introduce 1E-18J, which is what ~6eV is then unless you are at an atomic scale, which as soon as you say the word "mesh" you aren't, you haven't done much of anything. Are you certain you are saying what you intend to say? Are you saying that you want to introduce 6eV into the system or a material with a 6eV work function? The latter would make more sense but still doesn't get you anywhere.
Then you have not brought your intellect to the task.
What is the state of charge of the 6eV mesh when it comes into contact with a metal of 5eV work function, what is the chemical potential of the 5eV metal when it reaches equilibrium without the mesh?
Really, nothing happens. We can and do put metals with different work functions near each other all the time and they sit there happily in thermodynamic equilibrium all day long even though there is an internal electric field that results from the difference in work functions.
I think you need to see the mesh as a region that is more negative than the collector, this being so it has a few effects, the one that is well understood, and the reason for S3 grids in pentodes, is that it suppresses secondary electron emissions from the collector (plate).
The other effect is that the presence of an electric charge on the mesh in proximity to the collector will cause the chemical potential at the 5eV metal surface to be lowered, but at the same time the charge of the whole collector rises, that is to say the chemical potential at the left hand surface of the 5eV metal must therefore rise, and if so it means that the equilibrium of the left hand side is disturbed, electron must flow from the left hand side 5eV, this then means that the left hand side 1eV chemical potential must rise from the equilibrium point it would have absent the grid on the right hand side becoming charged, and of course the increase of chemical potential in the 1eV on the left hand side translates to a rise in chemical potential on the right hand side 1eV surface, so it (the RHS emitter) more readily emits electrons into the RHS gap.
Now we know that the grid has a charge higher than the RHS 5eV metal surface, so we know that hot tail electrons from the RHS 1eV surface has to do work to get past the mesh, so hot tail electrons present in the population are selectively (by dint of their own energy) allowed to reach the 5eV RHS surface only after they have cooled (done work) getting past the charged grid of the 6eV mesh.
I suppose this is what you mean by it is obvious that virtually nothing happens? :-X
What I thought was obvious, and I accept your statement as being confused on the issue, was that it was the work functions of the materials. The chemical potentials will of course come to equilibrium in a circuit with no persistent current (the diagram shown but without the mesh). Clearly a circuit producing a persistent current must, ipso facto, have a non uniform chemical potential of end surfaces.Mr. Hardcastle pentodes do not spontaneously drive energy into external circuits. External power supplies supply operating power to pentodes. If you think differently, then you can devise and publish an experiment that you think will show otherwise.
As to your saying nothing happens that simply goes against the proved use of a suppressor grid in a pentode tube.
Sorry MarkE but if you cannot see it from that diagram then I cannot make you see it, no amount of argument from me is going to sway your view.
Mr. Hardcastle pentodes do not spontaneously drive energy into external circuits. External power supplies supply operating power to pentodes. If you think differently, then you can devise and publish an experiment that you think will show otherwise.
Mr. Hardcastle I have not made any statements about the 2nd ( I presume you mean the Second Law of Energy ). I have simply stated the fact that two materials separated by a vacuum can have different work functions with the result that there is a static electrical field, and yet the system is in thermodynamic equilibrium. IE, if one were to connect an external passive circuit, the existence of that field would not cause any work to be done on the external circuit. Matters are quite the opposite: because of the existence of non-zero work functions, external work must be expended in order to pass current through those materials and the intervening vacuum.
I have all the proof I need backed up by others doing the same experiment, all you are showing in your statement is that you are prejudiced by the view that the 2nd is absolute.
MarkE, with due respect because I can see you are a professional in science, get a pentode, wire it as shown in my $10 experiment, heat it in a fancy oven and measure it with all the care you can, then tell me what you know.
@MarkE, I thought you already knew of the experiment.Mr. Hardcastle, if you have an experiment that shows something remarkable I find it rather incredible that you say that it has been successfully replicated by academics and they are anything but anxious to be the first to report such a discovery. Something rings very wrong.
In any case you will not do the experiment, and you will never agree with me that the addition of the mesh is significant, and no matter what evidence I provide to you verbally you will never concede I am right.
However I do provide a modified diagram for significant power generation at room temp rather than the sebby 550C.
My last comments on the subject are that the experiment is already posted here under some heading (sebithenco I believe), that you are welcome to contact me on my email (pjhardcastle@gmail.com) if you actually want to do the experiment, and that in any case your support in any way is academic for others of significant scientific credentials are interested.
The problem with the experiment is that though the results are conclusive, the ones from uni physics that have done it are reticent to go public because of the prejudice that pervades science, one physicist did tell his colleagues of the production of power from an isothermal oven using the $10 experiment Vacuum tube (Philips E180F Pemtode equivalent) and was essentially attacked, so he has been silenced. This is something that almost always happens when a discovery contradicts the status quo.
Mr. Hardcastle, if you have an experiment that shows something remarkable I find it rather incredible that you say that it has been successfully replicated by academics and they are anything but anxious to be the first to report such a discovery. Something rings very wrong.
In terms of work function creating an energy source, that is a misunderstanding on your part. Work function describes field required to move an electron from within a solid to surrounding vacuum. One can visualize that as an energy hill to overcome. Different materials have different work functions and so it is true that when placed in local proximity to one another a static electric field gradient exists. But that gradient exists in complete thermodynamic equilibrium. One might imagine this as a sort of roller coaster, any traverse around a closed path will not yield a net gain or loss in total gradient.
If you are confident that you have a discovery then I encourage you to properly document: Your hypothesis, your experiment design, your null result checks, and your measurements into a paper for peer review.
You are not going to do yourself any good by either misquoting those you converse with, or by asserting what you think is in their minds. My experience has been that those who have come upon significant discoveries and who have verified those discoveries have been very anxious to report them. What I use to assess the correctness of an idea is the direct evidence that supports or refutes the idea. So far you seem to express the idea that different work functions can be manipulated to create an energy source. That idea runs afoul of established evidence concerning the behavior of work functions. I will read the document you linked and see what it has to say.
Sorry MarkE but your comments that you believe academics would run to ring the bell of discovery are wrong, I know for I have had the conversations many times, you are merely speculating. The history of science is that people are attacked for holding a contrary view, in fact almost all discoveries are ignored for some time until some critical mass is achieved. That is the way it is and your comment about it ringing wrong is part of the problem, you assume I am wrong because others are not on the front page of the news.
What do you mean when you say: "converting ambient heat to power with 100% efficiency"?
You should try for yourself to get a science journal to return your call if you send them a note saying you have just found a way of converting ambient heat to power with 100% efficiency, or that you have breached the Kelvin interpretation, if they reply they will tell you you must have made a mistake.
Again, I have as of this time said no such thing, and I will thank you to not misquote me. I do ask that you provide evidence commensurate to your extraordinary claim.
You and others on these sites also tell me I must have made a mistake.
Mr. Hardcastle you have so far both misquoted me and told me what is in my mind, and unilaterally declared some personal superiority. Kindly restrict yourself to technical discussion.
The next bit where you give me a lecture is downright rude, the fact is I know this science clearly better than you do,
I never said anywhere that work function is an energy source, I fully understand all the science. I will not take you to task with what you said or gesture to educate you for I have better things than to engage in a Profitis / Sarkeizen style exchange, and I am sure you do to.
Here is the one pager I posted somewhere else.Mr. Hardcastle please tell me that you have much more than that one page pdf file. That document asserts a claim that the experiment: "violates Kelvin's interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics". It fails to even quote the statement it purports to refute, much less attempt to justify how it would manage to do that. The Kelvin statement of the second law refers to a single thermal reservoir. In the experiment as it is sparsely outlined, there are two heat reservoirs in the system and whatever heat source that drives the oven.
Mr. Hardcastle ...... In the experiment as it is sparsely outlined, there are two heat reservoirs in the system....
Mr. Hardcastle, in order to violate Lord Kelvin's expression of the Second Law of Energy, you need to do work by removing heat from a single reservoir. More specifically, you must perform work with every calorie that you remove from that single reservoir.
You have to be joking?
The fact that the measuring moving coil meter is at room temperature is completely immaterial. The DUT is immersed in a single heat reservoir, it has no temperature gradient across it. Both of the wires connecting the DUT to the outside world are of identical metal, the meter terminals are at the same temperature. What power drives the oven in also immaterial.
I am not going to waste any more time chatting with you.
"There is no process whose only effect is to accept heat from a single reservoir and transform it entirely into work."
Mr. Hardcastle, in order to violate Lord Kelvin's expression of the Second Law of Energy, you need to do work by removing heat from a single reservoir. More specifically, you must perform work with every calorie that you remove from that single reservoir.
The Kelvin statement of the Second Law of Energy is:
Your apparatus has much more than just a single heat reservoir. It has at least two reservoirs and an input power source.
zero incompatibility means we can use a college textbook to predict this repeatable cycle.Yawn.
was it a proof? no of course not, but it was a genuine attempt to try to replicate rather than to do nothing, which is what all skeptics do, absolutely nothing constructive.So much double-speak so little time. I truly don't understand this kind of talk at all. So "doing nothing" is bad. However attempting to replicate an effect in an environment so error prone that you can't really tell if he did it or not is "doing something".
Mr. Hardcastle, there are thermal leaks all over your experiment. That seems to make it impossible for your experiment to test whether heat taken from a reservoir can be completely converted to work contrary to the Kelvin statement.
I am at a loss as to how you think, but anyway.
Of course it is going to be very difficult to show heat taken in by the DUT to electrical output unless we build around the DUT sensitive thermal flux sensors, and if we did it would not be a $10 experiment, but even a first year student can appreciate the first law of energy, and by simple application of logic that the Kelvin statement can be restated as "you cannot produce power from a device wholly immersed in a single thermal reservoir".
That is not what you have. See above. If you have instrumentation capable of measuring to 0.001K accuracy at ~800K that works for less than $10. you can make lots of money in industrial temperature measurement.
So if you know the DUT is immersed in a single reservoir, which is in practical terms known to be so by making sure it has as close as possible to zero temp gradient (I can guarantee less than 1mK), then if it outputs electrical energy it must follow that it does so with 100% efficiency.
Again, even if you could keep the temperature at various points in your fixture on an extreme knife's edge, the thermal leaks of the oven remain, including through your lead wires. Steady temperature no more means no heat flow, than a constant voltage between two nodes of a circuit means no current flow through one or the other nodes.
To prove satisfactory compliance to the issue of my oven being an isothermal reservoir I deliberately applied thermal gradients of 1deg K to the DUT, the output variance was less than 0.01%. I was therefore 100% sure that my results were valid and not simply a case of me heating a DUT with a temperature gradient.
This is called bootstrapping. It is complete folly. 10E-6 K control out of 500K rise is 20 parts per billion net input / output power stability. If you think such extraordinary power stability is available to a mains operated oven heater, then you are at serious odds with the state of the art.
Taking the view that I can reasonably estimate both the thermal flux through vacuum and the temperature depression of the DUT active elements (cathode and anode) against the electrical output, you get a value of less than 0.00001 Kelvin cathode to anode (do the calcs yourself), but lets increase it to 0.001K, then apply that to the carnot equation and you simply cannot get 4uW output, in fact if you care to do some calculations based on a DT of 1mK the result would not allow a Carnot limit output of any more than 4 pW, so I am very sure of what I say.
In order for that 4uW to represent something that could challenge the Kelvin statement, the total rate of heat removal from the oven would also have to be 4uW. If you are powering your oven with more than 4uW then the 4uW measurement does not help you challenge the Kelvin statement of the Second Law of Energy.
predicted carnot limit = 4 uW thermal input flux x .001/1000 = 4pW (this is 1,000,000 times smaller than the measure output)
You can't show such a thing in the presence of thermal leaks all around you that are orders and orders of magnitude greater than the power you measure through your meter.
So something exceeding the Carnot efficiency limit by such a massive factor should ring some positive bells in your head.
If this is your experiment, it is no wonder that you cannot find traction with academic professionals. At the low power levels you are talking about discerning power moved by what you think is a Second Law violating mechanism from power input by the oven is going to be quite tricky. What you would be looking for is a way to make one part of the reservoir hotter, and one part colder.
MarkE, let's agree that no matter what I say you will not agree, and you will not pursue it by doing your own experiment, and that accordingly this conversation has no point.
FWIIW I in fact posted the diagram that started this conversation for the benefit of profitis, I really did not want a debate with entrenched skeptics.
Have a nice day.
Bye all.
Phil
Second Law can be broken!Maybe. That is certainly what the claimants say. In the first case, the video is instructional as to the types of experiments that they ran. In each case a very powerful magnet was moved into place and/or rotated which induced an image current in the copper box. The energy from that current can end up charging stray capacitance in the system. The electrometer measures extremely small currents, so it could take some time to discharge. The tests would be more convincing if they were run with the magnet in a fixed position relative to the copper box for longer periods of time, such as 24 hours.
Another Way to Realize Maxwell’ s Demon: Xinyong Fu, Zitao Fu, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, September 28, 2005
The device can provide continuously a small but macroscopic
power to an external load, violating Kelvin’s statement of the second law.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0509/0509111.pdf (http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0509/0509111.pdf)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0311104v3.pdf (http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0311104v3.pdf)
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/mar/08/graphene-in-new-battery-breakthrough
@mark E,whoooarr,hey,dontcha think that if i can tell you how to build a perpetual battery with things lying around your lab that phillip just may,may be right buddy? :-)Profitis, whether Mr. Hardcastle's ideas are right or wrong, his experiments can't tell.
@sarkeizen 1)a concentration cell is not informal.it is fully compliant with textbook rules governing concentration cellsYou are simply re-stating part of your hypothesis here. It's not a formal argument, which would be required to make your point.
2)even if i demonstrate a working everlasting batteryThis is, as mentioned before impossible to demonstrate purely empirically. So it's begging the question.
Try shoving palladium and silver in electrolyte under hydrogen sometime and come back to me with your complaints.Is this you conceding the point? I did ask you to make a "build it" statement if you were conceding the point. It's also an implied argument from ignorance...another logical fallacy,.
@mark E,,the utility grid is 240volts and 20 000 milliamps with no discharge curve. my battery is 1volt and 30milliamps/cm2 with a discharge curve.how much palladium do you want me to buy to go off-grid? I,l stick to using it for ipods thanks (-:.Profitis, a battery cannot consume materials and also be perpetual. A battery that is perpetual cannot have a discharge curve. You say that your battery has a discharge curve. Therefore it is not perpetual.
@markE a perpetual motion machine cant have cyclic thermodynamics?since when? It depends how much current you draw and the rate at which it re-charges itself,much like the karpen oxygen spillover battery.the driving gradient is hydrogen spillover in this case.catalyst spillover reaching a saturation point,then must b de-contacted from its substrate for re-establishment of equilibrium i.e. switched off. So i,l listen to my ipod for say 30mins,switch it off to rest say 10minutes,then listen to my ipod for another 30mins and repeat the thermodynamic cycle.depends how much power i drawProfitis, a battery that discharges is by definition not perpetual. You said that your battery has a discharge curve. Therefore your battery is not perpetual.
@mark E, ... my battery is 1volt and 30milliamps/cm2 with a discharge curve.how much palladium do you want me to buy to go off-grid? I,l stick to using it for ipods thanks (-:.
@mark E,huh? A battery that discharges repeatedly inbetween auto-charging repeatedly isnt perpetual? Then what is it? ((-:giggle B) the entire class of spillover batteries auto-recharge my friend,try building one sometime.Profitis if you want to claim that you have a battery that charges itself, then you have a high evidence barrier to climb. Would you care to demonstrate such a battery? Or in the alternate would you care to point to documentation of such a battery? What is the supposed source of energy that recharges this "entire class" of battery?
A battery that discharges repeatedly inbetween auto-charging repeatedly isnt perpetual?Not in any useful sense of the term.
the entire class of name-I-stupidly-just-made-up-from-googling-batteries auto-rechargeYawn.
So the link details the acoustic equivalent of one way glass that has been built in a lab now. Now my question is do inventions like this that are creating fundamental Assymetries that were thought to be impossible not create a glimmer of hope that a device in the same class of quentron type devices could in fact be possible?I think the problem I see here is that "fundamental asymmetries" sounds like a convenient fiction. Why bother relating the "hearing means being heard" with the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Other than knowing that one is not entirely true bolsters your belief in the other being likewise.
@sarkeizen,no problemo,just stack a few slices of metal and electrolyte into a pile under hydrogen to up the voltage and leak a steady flow of smaller current at the same rate as the battery,s recharge rate and you get continuous power to your ipodStill, only assertions and no textbook cite or formal argument. Let me know when you get around to doing this.
how the cell mentioned in wikipedia under the name 'oxygen concentration cell'Again, no idea what this is. Please define, not using the term "wikipedia" or references to wikipedia. Strange that you can't define this term or really any other term.
Sark... can't spell the rest of your username correctly by memory sorry..There is a big difference between a headline description and the body of an article. The use of fans to push air back does not alter acoustic symmetry. It continuously adds energy in one direction courtesy of the fans so that any energy traveling in the reverse direction is more difficult to detect. It is also hard to hear what someone is saying when they are riding away from you on a bicycle even if their head is turned towards you.
I have a very serious question for you relating to this link: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/01/31/1745245/engineers-invent-acoustic-equivalent-of-one-way-glass (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/01/31/1745245/engineers-invent-acoustic-equivalent-of-one-way-glass)
So the link details the acoustic equivalent of one way glass that has been built in a lab now. Now my question is do inventions like this that are creating fundamental Assymetries that were thought to be impossible not create a glimmer of hope that a device in the same class of quentron type devices could in fact be possible? I mean I know the device itself doesn't itself necessarily violate 2LOT but to me it seems like every day brings us closer to viable 2LOT violating devices.
What is your feeling on this?
@mark E, naturaly.i got a vid sample here on the forum www.overunity.com/downloads/sa/view/down/526/ this power coming from a few mm2 active nickel-black surface plated on a nickel grid anode and silver cathode in sodium hydroxide under hydrogen. Theres quite a few documents on the related karpen,s battery floating on the net and a good one is here by camil alexandrescu for new energy journal www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/69870019 where its oxygen concentration gradient is described.the source of energy for this class of cells is heat from a single thermal reservoir,anywhere,anytime.Your first link shows someone connecting a uA meter to a cell a few times. What is that supposed to establish other than there is some stored energy in the cell used? Secondly, you describe the cell as using hydrogen. Hydrogen is just an energy store.
@sarkeizen..no.i want to use the term 'wikipedia' because nobody beside you is complaining about it.The fact is, I have absolutely no useful idea what the device you are talking about is and now you are saying, that you refuse to define the terms you are using. That seems identical to deliberately stalling the argument - yet again. :D :D :D
we the stupid community demand youExactly how is it reasonable to demand I refute something that you refuse to define, cite properly or argue?
@mark E yes,a few mm2 of H2-saturated nickel almost breaking my 100microamp meter(was roughly 0.5milliamp there).but thats the thing about videos,they dont prove anything which is why replication is the only way to go.proper replication by experienced electrochemists/physicists.your damn right hydrogen is an energy store,even by itself,no oxidizer present.your suggested test for a kelvin bust is brilliant @mark E,im impressed.one may be able to do this with just infrared cameras or sensitive thermocouples,you,l know you have a winner if the cell-side is the side that always cools down but you have to use the high-power spillover cells for this test.The one minute video showed that there was energy stored in the cell. It did not establish that the cell was run down and subsequently recharged.
i have already placed a diagram up for youCan I take that to mean that virtually every textbook does not contain sufficient information to necessitate the existence of eternal batteries? :D :D
@mark E.the one minute video didnt show the hidden magnets and watch-battery and undercarpet cable either,whats a video really worth to those who dont want to replicate?that video was just intended to show its potential power/unit area at the top of its repeatable discharge curve,thats why i didnt hold the wires down too long.its a scary amount of power for a concentration cell but understandable when you think of the effective concentration difference of hydrogen in platinum group metal surfaces(including nickel) compared to silver,gold which hardly adsorb any.its equivalent to thousands atmospheres pressure difference in concentration between the surfaces and thats the driving force for hydrogen spillover between the two electrodes and hydrogen spillover in general.atomic hydrogen shifting electrochemicaly from anode to cathode.recombination occuring on the cathode at a rate x.Profitis the video was something that you linked when I asked for an example of a battery supposedly recharging itself. The video did not demonstrate a discharge curve. It did not demonstrate the cell's maximum power point and therefore maximum power capability. What the demonstration did appear to show was that the cell at least had the small amount of power capability required to deflect the meter movement.
@sarkeizen grrrrrr >:(So in other words you concede the point? You can't take an ordinary textbook and make your argument.
@sarkeizen lol you cant take an ordinary textbook and unmake my argumentsThat would require for you to have made a relevant argument. So far you are just asserting things. The statement in question, remember is about textbooks necessitating eternal batteries.
no one has yet risen to that challenge.no one has even risen to my challenge over 2 wikipedia instancesNobody has risen to debunking something that you refuse to define, support by cites, provide experimental data or provide an argument for. I wonder why... :D :D :D
@mark E put me in your lab and pay me in dollars(not south african rands) and you,l see my real intent :-).im just here for mental stimulation to see if anyone can rise to my challenge and point out exactly where and how any one of my diagrammed cells will run out of juice.no one has yet risen to that challenge.no one has even risen to my challenge over 2 wikipedia instances nevermind my designs.yes i agree that it will be very easy for you to determine if the suggested higher power devices are kelvin breaches but i dont need to be convinced.i need to be un-convinced.Profitis, perhaps you do not understand: It is the burden of one who makes extraordinary claims to provide strong evidence for those claims. We already have plenty of evidence for what is ordinary. You have made at least two extraordinary claims: 1) A claim of batteries that fully recharge themselves when they are not loaded, and 2) A claim of batteries that recharge themselves by drawing heat from a single ambient heat reservoir, IE there is no colder reservoir to receive heat removed from the ambient reservoir. Anytime that you would like to offer strong evidence for either or both of your claims I am happy to review it.
@sarkeizen,if my argument was irrelevant then you would be able to show exactly how the nernst equation doesnt lead directly to an equal pressure gaseous concentration cellNot true. Your argument is irrelevant because it does not provide a cite from an ordinary textbook and you have not provided a formal logical argument from your cite.
the nernst equation is no fallacI'm not commenting on anything other than your claim that if I can not demonstrate something than it affects the truth of the statement: "an ordinary textbook NECESSITATES the existence and ability to build a battery which can power an ipod like device continually and eternally". Which is what you are claiming and it is a logical fallacy...moron.
youre basicly saying that the nernst equation doesnt lead directly to a working wikipedia oxygen deviceI can't be saying that because you've never provided a useful definition of what that is. :D :D :D
@mark E..but if i show you something that proves numbers 1 and 2 is there the possibility that you would give me a full-time job? :D:DProfitis any employment problems you might have would not be much of a concern. But first you would have to prove one of the claims. Saying you can prove something and actually proving it are very different things.
@sarkeizen..nope.the nernst equation is no fallacy buddy-bro.youre basicly saying that the nernst equation doesnt lead directly to a working wikipedia oxygen device when my whole argument is that it does.You do know that in an air - metal battery that the metal electrode oxidizes don't you? Even if one treats the finite oxygen in the atmosphere as effectively unlimited, the amount of metal in an air - metal battery anode is far more finite. That's true even if one were to construct a really big cell.
@mark E wow i might just take you up on that challenge because i can get a job in research here easily but our currency is crappy,even if we get a large sum.when i said wikipedia oxygen device i was refering to wikipedia,s oxygen concentration cell seperate from its accelerating effect upon iron corrosion.Profitis there are two claims outstanding:
where exactly did i not necessitate the construction of perpetual batteries by looking in textbooks in this thread?You have never provided a useful cite or a formal logical argument. Without a formal argument nothing is necessitated. QED.
it was exceptionaly formal @sarkeizen.the way i bridged the gap between textbooks and this website by throwing down a nernstianA formal argument as defined to you many times is a series of statements where each one forces the next. That is, there is no possible other conclusion. It must, in this case start with your cite and end with your conclusion "therefore textbooks necessitate the existence of and ability to build a battery which will power an ipod-like device continually and eternally".
its time for you to re-examine info theory @sarkeizen. Nernst equation forces equal pressure gas conc cell forces spontaneous reversable thermodynamics. Or in short: gaseous electrochemical entropy trumps kelvin entropy and then vice versa.This is not a cite or a formal argument. You have not provided either in the past. So there is literally no argument for me to address. When you figure out how to make an argument that actually furthers your point let me know... :D :D
@sarkeizen.i stupidly disagree because I am trying to change the subject.You may disagree but...
@sarkeizen..gibberish.if i drew a diagram of a lightbulb you would know it belongs to textbooks.I think the person saying things like"It belongs to textbooks" is the person talking gibberish.
@sarkeizen i did repost itSo far you have posted nothing that fits the definition of a formal argument.
lol @sarkeizen your talking such utter crap man and you know it.All you have to do to disprove me is...
geez im going to explode now,somebody please hand me a beer to chill...Before you explode could you...
@sarkeizen no need to go through all that shit.So in other words you haven't made a formal argument. Right? In which case you lose. Remember my point was that you can't support your point or that you can't provide support as strong as your assertion.
so instead of interrogating me directly on the physics of concentration cellsDude, I asked you for a formal argument going from ordinary electrochemistry textbooks to your conclusion. That is interrogating you on physics. However it does appear to be requesting more evidence than you have.
sabotage efforted steps to cite-and-splain this shitROFL. You're such a liar. You haven't provided a single proper cite. NOT ONE. The only thing close was where told me to get a completely different textbook than what you claim to be citing from and that you made me wait months for AND you said you did it deliberately. Nobody would believe that you have even made a small attempt to cite and argue as was asked.
english lit,spacebars,punctuationYour English is like that of a ten year old. Several people have complained and I think we all know you are doing it deliberately. So just asking you to drop the fake moron-speak and type like an adult shouldn't be a problem.
'correct' textbook editionsYou are lying. You told me to get a completely different textbook than the one you appear to have. This isn't about "editions" moron.
'wrong' encyclopediasYou are lying. I haven't said an encyclopedia is wrong. You said your argument was in EVERY textbook. So citing something other than wikipedia should be easy. It wasn't so that makes your claim suspect. From there you were only able to reference obscure papers. Often lying about them because, of course you haven't read them.
'dishonest' tendenciesDude, you have admitted to lying to me at least four times about KEY POINTS. Most of your above points are lies. I have been completely honest with you this whole time. Your dishonesty is unfair and wrong.
perpetual definitionsYou are lying. If I don't know what you're talking about I should be allowed to ask for a definition. You are the one who outright REFUSES to define terms and the DEMANDS people evaluate the evidence. Mind you the fact that you talk like a 10 year old doesn't help.
eternal irrelevenciesEverything I've asked for, to my knowledge I've explained usually multiple times and I've usually explained why what you provided instead is stupid. However if there's any outstanding question about why I am asking you to provide something. Please feel free to ask.
Sarkeizen plays the game of "legalism" where the rules of procedure determine who "wins" and who "loses." It is precisely the same gameGoing for an oscar? You should with melodrama like that.
which is played in today's so-called Courts where the Judge and the Attorneys act their respective roles (as actors) while they conduct their "business."
There is no interest in establishing truth and deception is not only permissible; it is encouraged.Uh...did you not notice the number of times Profitis lied and admitted to lying to me? No? Well don't let that get in the way of your vicarious victimhood.
The World of Science has become infected with the same sort of procedural nonsense. It is a sign of the times in which we now find ourselves.I'm not a spokesperson for the "World of Science" I'm glad you think you are. However whatever nonsense you are thinking it's clearly incorrect.
@sarkeizen ..so you,re basicly sayingI'm saying that the only point I've been discussing from exceptionally early on was about your ability to support your statement: "ALL TEXTBOOKS necessitate the existence of and ability to create a battery which will power an ipod-like device continually and eternally"
@sarkeizen so you want CITES and EXPLANATION from all textbooksYou know if you read my prior posts, instead of just being an asshole these things would be easier .
@sarkeizen so you want me to CITE and EXPLAIN in order to FORCE spontaneously reversable thermodynamics in a concentration cell that dont change over time correct?Your statement is too ambiguous. Your argument needs to be a series of statements which force a conclusion (Therefore textbooks necessitate the existence of and ability to build a battery which can run an ipod like device constantly and eternally.). To force, in this case means demonstrate there exists no logically-valid alternative.
Stepping in here for a moment, my understanding of the Nernst equation is that entropy is implicit within it.If so, that kind of illustrates my much earlier comment about profitis being a little ignorant about how physical formulae are developed. Physical formulae are empirical truths, so if we use a regression analysis (or some other tool) to create a formula to relate property X and Y. We include all the assumptions involved in observing property X and Y. This creates limitations on inference. Occasionally math does reveal things that we didn't observe. The Dirac equation, for example predicted positrons. However this is not necessarily the general case.
@mark E no.the nernst equation simply relates voltage to concentration or more precisely,activity of all participating species in an electrode half-reaction.it says nothing about reversability,the kelvin statement is all about reversability.the kelvin statement implies that every time you go through a thermodynamic cycle that you must put effort in the system to repeat it.there is no net change in a karpen cell over time that correlates in any way with the energy it gives because it doesnt need to abide by kelvin statement to fulfill its thermodynamic entropy requirements.Thanks, but if I let two half cells communicate that have different concentrations of the same ions, my understanding is that they will each move towards the equilibrium concentration. If they were thermodynamically reversible they might move towards or away from the equilibrium concentration. Do I understand that incorrectly?
yes demonstrate is the key word @sarkeizen i.e. to build and see"demonstrate" is a key term, but as usual your definition is one of the most stupid ones possible. :D
do you want me to CITE and EXPLAIN (your not an electrochemist i presume) how a concentration cell,s entropy requirements can be met without kelvin rule in the picture,yes or no.Again, you are too ambiguous. I've stated what is required. You need to make a series of statements, each one must force the next. It must start at a textbook cite and end with the statement which I've reproduced probably a hundred times by now.
@sarkeizen your implying that kelvin statement is necessary for all thermodynamic entropy requirements is totaly false.Shhh I was talking about math. When you know more than high-school math - then you're allowed to talk about it. So far...no dice. :D
correct @ mark E. While those ions diffuse and spread out electrical work is done and heat is absorbed from the environment to compensate the done work,like an expanding gas on a piston in a cylinder after compression.its drive to electrochemical entropy equilibrium priority number one.it obeys kelvin rule because its reversability is non spontaneous.effort is required to re-concentrate those ions but not so with the karpen system.in the karpen system electrochemical entropy balance is achieved by compression of gas when it passes from one electrode to the other and then of course reverts to original state when switched off,back to each electrodes most stable state when non-relative to each other.Thanks again, but it seems we may have an issue with terms. My understanding of thermodynamic reversibility is that something is only reversible if it can go from a first state to a second state or back without external energy input, IE effort. Do we agree on this? If we do, it would seem to me that Nernst as it describes systems that go towards equilibrium implicitly precludes reversibility.
@mark E a nernst potential between 2 half-cells at equal temperature tells us that its going to be a spontaneous reaction.it says nothing about irreversability or how much extra effort we,l need to reverse it,only kelvin statement tells us that stuff so we cant possibly come to conclusions on how much extra effort we,l need.we can only know the minimum effort we need to feed it to reverse it. In the case of karpen,s battery we,l have to use a battery based on the same principal but at least 10-100 times more power density to be taken seriously.Profitis, doesn't the Nernst equation depend on the reactants going from whatever the current state is towards an equilibrium / depleted state?
but of course @mark E.any battery voltage depletes as the system tends toward the primary driving force,electrochemical equilibrium.and so it goes with e.g. the wikipedia oxygen concentration cell.the only difference being that theres a gas pressure differential across electrodes at equilibrium in order to flatten the voltage out.this is spontaneous. I think that karpen,s own ideas about his battery fits in very well with todays catalyst gas spillover model and with concentration cell model.the evidence from higher-powered relatives supporting this in my opinion.i think it wont be long before we see practical applications at an affordable price on the shelves or integrated with electronic items.Profitis, since we seem to agree that the Nernst equation describes systems that drive towards equilibrium, I am at a loss as to why you state that the Nernst equation is not premised on irreversibility. If we take your example of a concentration cell, my understanding of the Nernst equation is that it predicts the voltage of the cell as that cell goes from a starting state of two disparate concentrations with a resulting measurable voltage potential and energy capacity to an equilibrium concentration with no voltage difference and no remaining energy capacity. I don't know of any means to get such a cell to start building up disparity in the concentrations that does not require outside work. So, it changes from the disparate concentration state to the equilibrium state by itself but will not go the other way without external work.
@mark E its easier for me to explain with the diagram of a pair of pants. See the entro-pant-ry between the hem length...Yawn...No formal argument I see. No surprise. :D
@mark E its easier for me to explain with the diagram below which depicts a hydrogen electrode concentration cell,s energy cycle diagram before discharge (A) and after discharge (B).the electrochemical entropy requirement trumping both temperature and pressure entropy requirements toward equilibrium between two inert electrodes of differing work functions under hydrogen beginning at equal pressure(they can even be the same metal).heat is absorbed from the environment at one electrode and spat out at the other when going from A to B toward equilibrium(switched on) then heat is spat out to the environment at one electrode and absorbed at the other when going from B to A(switched off)both directions are spontaneous.one direction toward electrochemical entropy(on) and the other direction toward gaseous decompression entropy(off). You have to replicate one of the higher powered hydrogen concentration cells suggested here in order to study it appropriately.pH2= hydrogen pressure difference and Ep= electrode potential differenceProfitis are you telling me that without consumption of external energy one of these cells will recharge itself? Are you telling me that it is the luck of the draw that one of these cells discharges towards equilibrium versus moves towards 100% concentration in one cell half and 0% concentration in the other?
no @mark E.thats no on you and me requiring to put in energy.not no on the universe requiring to donate energy, from a single thermal reservoir.Profitis, the original pair of questions are each a yes or no. If you want to add explanatory detail, that's always good.
Profitis are you telling me that without consumption of external energy one of these cells will recharge itself?
Are you telling me that it is the luck of the draw that one of these cells discharges towards equilibrium versus moves towards 100% concentration in one cell half and 0% concentration in the other?
@mark E 1) wrong.you,re saying that the word reversability implies spontaneity which it doesnt.a nicad battery is totaly reversable but not spontaneously.it needs work input by you and me to recharge it.work by you and me isnt needed to recharge any karpen system,only a spontaneous reversability is needed,ie.a spontaneous heat-sink. Any voltage including nernst voltage says nothing about reversability,only about spontaneity of reaction.it is only kelvin statement that implies thermodynamic irreversability on everything,thats why its written in textbooks.if nernst equation told us everything about irreversability then kelvin statement wouldnt be needed. 2) only if the rate of discharge exceeds the rate of recharge is a switch needed and that can be powered by the battery itself,eg.transistor so no external influence is required for switching between on/off modes.the original karpen cell used a motor-switch to recharge inbetween discharge pulses.Profitis, I said that reversibility requires that a system can traverse either direction between two states without external energy input. Since the answer to question 1) is that external energy is required to go in the recharge direction, that system is thermodynamically irreversible. No battery that I know of is thermodynamically reversible. As you acknowledge with the NiCd external energy is required to recharge.
@mark E i can summerise the whole process like this: work isnt needed by the system to spontaneously compress gas.a spontaneous heat-sink is needed.I never considered that there is such a thing as thermal reservoir in some state popping into existence. That sounds kind of scary. What would prevent a large reservoir popping up that is at a considerable different temperature than my body at some inconvenient moment? I don't like the idea that I might instantly evaporate or freeze solid on the whim of some capricious heat sink.
@mark E a perfect thermodynamic reversability and heat sink will always pop up into existence in any system that has at least 2 assymetric entropy states like a quenco for example: on mode= equalization of electrochemical potential.off mode= redistribution of electron gas charge.Profitis, I am sorry but I cannot parse that sentence into anything meaningful and true.
ok @mark E lets rather deal with something that is claimed to exist by established sources e.g. wikipedia.perhaps if i ask you a few questions then there,l be less confusion for everyone.can you tell me how an oxygen electrode concentration cell will reach equilibrium spontaneously? Im talking about 2 platinum oxygen electrodes in same electrolyte with different exposure to gas in a closed system here.It is basic chemistry that two reservoirs with different ion concentrations that are allowed to communicate will change concentrations until they reach equilibrium. Is there even a question about that?
im talking about an oxygen gas electrode concentration cell @mark E not an ionic one.can you tell me what must spontaneously shift from one electrode to the other to go to equilibrium...As far as I know, the mere existence of the concentration disparity of two species and the ability of the two concentrations to physically communicate is sufficient to cause the system to drive towards equilibrium. I would ask the complementary question: If the species can communicate what is there to keep them from driving towards equilibrium?
precisely @mark E.what is keeping the system so dead-stable in communication and yet giving a classical nernst potential in direct proportion to relative gas exposures of electrodes???Communication is a physical condition of materials being in contact directly or through an intermediary fluid. It is a stipulation. Since such configurations are what the Nernst equation describes potentials for, what is unusual here that might make the Nernst equation inapplicable?
prexactly @mark E.exactly.nothing is stopping shifting of gas,spontaneously!! :D.NOW, lets disconnect the connecting wire between the two half-cells,whats stopping the system from returning to original stability,before we short-circuited????Are you suggesting that when the external circuit is removed that the species still in communication with each other do not continue moving towards equilibrium?
the species was in direct communion before we switched on,remember mark E. Oxygen gas was freely available to diffuse toward equal concentrations into both electrodes prior to being in electrical contact.yet it didnt.it was a very stable and persistant nernst potential.it was stable.no self-discharge..Profitis, a picture would be helpful annotated with the material concentrations.
heres a diagram mark E.the system totaly stable as you see it with its different o2 concentrations,nernst potential.total gas communication between electrodes,equal pressure.zero self-discharge over time.Profitis, from the picture it looks to me like the oxygen concentrations freely move toward equilibrium taking the cell potential to zero with or without an external load.
you have permission to try it yourself mark E. You are correct,gas pumps auto-electrochemicaly down each electrode to respective depths spontaneously during open circuit off mode however respective concentrations of gas are still different.it was the smart poster lanca IV who mentioned this earlier in this thread.Profitis, I would appreciate a reference if you can provide one.
im going to have to hunt for one mark E. But dont you think that the o2 potential on the anode is diluted by the larger surface area of submerged electrode surface and the potential more concentrated on the cathode with less area for charge distribution?Profitis what I expect is that any difference in concentration is driven towards equilibrium regardless of whether the external circuit is connected or not. I may be missing a consideration which is why I have asked for a reference that states that the drive towards equilibrium requires connection of the external circuit.
so what you are in fact implying @mark E is that if we were to measure the potential of a grossly submerged oxygen electrode and a slightly submerged oxygen electrode that they would both measure exactly equal voltages against a standard reference electrode,correct?I have said that I expect the concentrations to move towards equilibrium, open circuit or not. I have asked you for a reference that shows that they would not move towards equilibrium with an open circuit.
which implies by default that you,re saying that regardless of submergence of an oxygen electrode in a swamp of electrolyte that its potential will always be the same @mark E..correct?I tell you what: Once you come up with a reference such as I asked for, then I will review that reference and we can discuss the matter further.
I tell you what: Once you come up with a reference such as I asked for, then I will review that reference and we can discuss the matter further.Never. Going. To. Happen. :D
i tell you what @mark E, lets go with your flow,lets block communion between the gas of the 2 half-cells to make it easier for you and take it from there shall we? That removes your doubts regarding communion yes?QED. :D
i tell you what @mark E, lets go with your flow,lets block communion between the gas of the 2 half-cells to make it easier for you and take it from there shall we? That removes your doubts regarding communion yes?I don't know why you would even suggest that since a number of messages back I stated that communication is required. I don't think the idea that I would agree to removing a required element makes any sense.
Never. Going. To. Happen. :DMy never threshold for this request is a week.
QED. :D
@mark E gaseous communion is necessary for a gaseous concentration cell? Since when?cmon mark, lets seperate the electrodes with a gas valve and build up a pressure differiential,whaddayasay :DProfitis, you can deal with the issue at hand, which at this point requires a suitable reference, or you can play by yourself. I am not interested in games of "Yes it is. No it isn't."
@mark E you want me to reference a point that contradicts kelvin statement?Play by yourself it is.
@sarkeizen we are still waiting for you to show that textbooks dont necessitate perpetual batteriesROFL. I don't see why you would be waiting for that. As I've never stated that I'm arguing that. I've made it pretty clear that my position is that you can't support your point (or can't support it with evidence equivalent to your confidence) and so far, I'm right.
lol @ sarkeizen..i cant support common concentration cells and their expected behaviour?Yawn. You are trying (unsuccessfully) to change terms, this particular kind of duplicity is one of your three go-to techniques (the others being "build it" and "prove this other independent thing" both of which are pretty much appeals to ignorance - there's also a helping of ad hominem and poisoning the well). Again I'd ask if people you know and argue with think you are intelligent. If so, I'd get new friends. :D :D :D
Because replicability trumps everything at the end of the day :DYawn, well you really want to believe that even when it's been explained to you how replication can easily be wrong. But hey, you have my permission to make yourself as stupid as you like. That's your right as a human being. I'm just trying to help you out. Also I don't get to argue with people who are deliberately lying to me very often so it's interesting practice. :D :D
has made it ten times easier for me to prove to you and the audience how......ordinary textbooks necessitate the existence of and the ability to build a battery which will power an ipod like device eternally and continually? That is what we're talking about because you requested it.
mr sarkeizen i repeat: mr E has cleared the path to textbook evidence.Sadly logic dictates that the only evidence that can make the your point concerning textbooks is for you to produce a formal logical argument starting from an ordinary textbook cite which necessitates the existence of and the ability to build a battery which will power an ipod like device eternally and continually.
ok @sarkeizen.lets do that.lets block communion of gas between the 2 electrodes in the wikipedia concentration cell.now you are forced to acknowledgeNothing. There is nothing to say that textbooks agree with this statement. As the argument is about what textbooks say and you have provided no cite to textbooks so your drawing of a pair of pants doesn't force anything about textbooks.
textbooks say alot aboutWhat I said was "there is nothing to say". Meaning that in your argument there is nothing forcing the idea that textbooks say anything like what you are saying. Since you agree that a formal argument must *force* it's points. You must also agree you must force the point are claiming concerning ordinary textbook agreeing with you.
excuse me @sarkeizen? i get this feeling that your trying to change the subject.That's because you're not very smart.
so lets go with the textbookPlease cite.
brbYawn. I thought this was is every textbook?
it is in every textbook mr sarkeizenGood then pick an ordinary textbook and provide a cite...
brbHow long does it take to find an irrelevant website and post a link? I mean, since that's what you're going to do..
its gota be perfect so we want the best text-cites namsayn @sarkeizen.chill for a while..brbAccording to you it's in every textbook everywhere in a form that leaves no room for question....
so lets go with the textbook flow your highness sir-sarkeizen: the corrosion textbooks say that the oxygen concentration potential will keep rusting the point on the iron,steadily,continuously,over days,months,years,tens of years.this sound like a persistent potential to you? Sounds like a persistent potential to me.with total complete gaseous communion.(try a rusting experiment sometime).thus we safely conclude the standardised equi-pressure oxygen gas concentration cell to posess a permanently stable nernstian rest potential,in breach of kelvin laws.
Online Profitis
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1053
View Profile
Personal Message (Offline)
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2118 on: February 14, 2014, 03:25:30 PM »
Quote
im going to have to hunt for one mark E. But dont you think that the o2 potential on the anode is diluted by the larger surface area of submerged electrode surface and the potential more concentrated on the cathode with less area for charge distribution?
lol mark E maybe your on my side here.just integrate diffusion co-efficients of oxygen species into the nernst equation from the gorgeous BUTLER-VOLMER classic equation (see wikipedia) and we get for an o2 electrode that deviates from standard reversability due to kinetics : O2 + 4H+ + 4e- >kf/kb< H2O where kf and kb are the rate constants of forward and backward reactions respectively. Integrated thus: E for oxygen electrode = RT/nFe ln kf/kb + RT/nFe ln c[H+] c[H2O]/c[O2] where concentration of water is taken as unity.thus we see how kinetic diffusion constraints directly affect the REST potential of an gaseous electrode,the difference in diffusion constraints between 2 same such electrodes giving rise to a REST potential difference.Equations are all fine and well when applied to the appropriate circumstances. Time keeps ticking by and that cite your were going to locate seems no closer. In the meantime, in that quote of yours I cited you relied upon an infinite supply of reagents to keep the reaction from stopping when the feed stock exhausts. Everything you have talked about so far, in the absence of external energy, keeps driving towards equilibrium not away from equilibrium.
where did i say theres a drive away from equilibrium @mark E? No i agree with you,it goes straight to equilibrium,one of two equilibriums,an electrochemical one OR a gaseous diffusion one.you just choose which one at a flick of a switch.you cannot just dismiss the butler-volmer equation as it applies directly here proving you wrong about zero rest potential,and proving you right about a kelvin breach..Since I haven't ever uttered the words on this forum: "zero rest potential" how can I be either right or wrong about such a thing?
lol @mark E! So you are open to the butler-volmer equation grossly disturbingly nuisancely thrusting a nicey stabley rest potential on the wikipedia o2 cell :D.halleluya,its going to rain money tonight! :DProfitis you can continue to unilaterally try to take great liberties to which you are not entitled.
about that cite..its no longer needed :DWrong as usual. Your argument is "textbooks predict the existence of and ability to build a device which can power a ipod-like device eternally and continually".
im suddenly cured @sarkeizen.just want to see if mark E can escape the corner then you,l have that cite..Yawn. Unlikely.
@mark E.your cornered.your only way out is to show that the butler-volmer-nernst relation doesnt apply to my diagram.that there is no stable permanent potential difference on off-mode in that cell.Profitis you can keep going on constructing men of straw to slay to your heart's content. I am not biting.
@sarkeizen..my pants diagram isa) Not something which can be found in an ordinary textbook and
@sarkeizen the only way to bring my point to the table?The point of yours that's being discussed. That textbooks necessitate the existence of and the ability to create a battery which will run an ipod like device eternally and continually.
@sarkeizen..all equi-pressure gaseous electrode overpotential differential cells necessitate a kelvin bust..sound better now?Are you no longer saying that: Ordinary textbooks necessitate the existence of and ability to build a battery which will power a ipod-like device eternally and continually?
@mark E..if you can disprove my statement then no.if you cant...and i know you cant then...The burden of proof is upon the person making the extraordinary claim. You make the extraordinary claims. You bear the burden of proof.
@mark E the burden of disproof is upon the person making extra-ordinary claims too. you claim theres no macroscopic kelvin violations,the evidence says otherwise.evidence by the book..Profitis your claim of macroscopic violation of the Second Law of Energy is an extraordinary one. Feel free to offer proof of your extraordinary claim. Given that in a week you have failed to offer the reference you promised to me, and that it has been God only knows how many months you have failed to provide any cite supporting your extraordinary claims to sarkeizen it is reasonable to conclude that it will be a very long time before you offer any evidence, much less a proof for your extraordinary claim that you have a demonstrable case of a macroscopic Second Law of Energy violation.
you are implying that the profitis statement does not totaly support my ipod statement.No, since the "ipod statement" which we will call "The *real* profitis statement" from now on is dependent on a textbook cite and a conclusion ending with the Real Profitis Statement and since whatever other thing you are blathering about does not provide these things. You have provided nothing to demonstrate the relevance of your other blather.
lol @ mark E.but if i were to plonk a working device on your desk you would be convinced, after a while right?Profitis, given that you haven't come up with promised references, I won't be holding my breath that you would come up a physical proof as a substitute.
ok @mark E but if i ever do that and your totaly satisfied with what you see as supporting my statement i,d hope you,d stick to your end of the bargain by giving me a job in your lab :-)That's a tall "if" in there.
It is difficult for me to imagine what that reward is.It's pretty easy to imagine: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914000324
For $35.95, I'll stick to imagination!http://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/trolls-just-want-to-have-fun.pdf
so you have a fully-equiped lab and you didnt..maybe..perhaps..try building anything i mentioned here @mark E?You jump to queer conclusions.
so you have a fully-equiped lab and you didnt..maybe..perhaps..try building anything i mentioned here @mark E?Only an idiot would...oh hey...that's you. :D :D :D
dont start shit nowWhat I said was true. Even if someone had a lab, very well equipped they would be wasting their money to attempt to replicate your device. :D
ive got half a lab with no gas cylinders lying around and i managed just fineThen you didn't understand what I wrote. I said it would be a waste of money. That still stands. :D
THE profitis statement derived from made-up textbooksSadly is irrelevant. The True Profitis Statement is the thing that matters and you have left that unsupported for months. I'm sure we can all guess why. Because you can't support it. If it was so easy as you claimed to support from textbooks anyone can find. Then it stands to reason that you would have already done so. However, you haven't. So the likely case is you really have no idea how to support your idea. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
its useless to tell me that it must be argued because it embodies the argument..I gather that all sorts of reason and logic are useless to tell you. :D :D :D
be too tedious for me to cite and splain every single cause-and-effect...and what did I say?
Since all I am arguing is that you can't support that statement strictly using textbooks and formal logic.You just conceded my point loser-boy.
@sarkeizen you have toShow that the true profitis statement is unproven and that profitis can not support it. Done. :D :D :D :D
@sarkeizen: 'show that the fake profitis statement is unproven and that the true profitis statement isnt supported by it'You have posted no formal logical argument. The True Profitis Statement - requires a formal argument because it states that an ordinary textbook(s) and logic are all that are required for it's proof.
Offline profitis
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1080
View Profile
Personal Message (Offline)
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2118 on: February 14, 2014, 03:25:30 PM »
Quote
im going to have to hunt for one mark E. But dont you think that the o2 potential on the anode is diluted by the larger surface area of submerged electrode surface and the potential more concentrated on the cathode with less area for charge distribution?
cmon mr superscientist mark E..we want you to put your money where your mouth is.we dont wana hear just talk.we want you to topple the monstrosity of a statement,the profitis statement.cmon,pull those formulas out clint-eastwood styles :D (giggle).you cant because that statement casts a huge dark shadow over your hero: captain pile-steamer-kelvin :DDo you really think you are going to get somewhere with behavior like that?
lol @sarkeizen.check your feeble attempts to derail the monster profitis statement!Your fake statements are simply irrelevant. No cite, no formal argument. So no equivalency to the True Profitis Statement.
@mark E..unless you destroy my statement..yes (-:Then you are badly mistaken.
rubbish @sarkeizen.the latest profitis statement isi) Demonstrated to be not equivalent to the True Profits Statement or
lol @sarkeizen.who are you trying to kid?I've laid the logic out pretty plain. All you are doing is putting your fingers in your ears.
yawn @mark E.my statement still stands.getting taller by the second..Why do you choose to exemplify Dunning-Kruger in action?
attack my last vehemently destructive statementEither it's equivalent to the True profitis statement or it is not.
you clearly dont understand anything ive saidI understand what you're saying. You're simply incorrect.
my 1st statement is a consequence of my last statementIn logic we would write that as: M -> T (or M implies T) we can call that (2). However because of (1) we know that T is only true if there's a formal logical argument and an ordinary textbook cite. So unless M contains both of those then M can not imply T.
which is self-supported .self-supported.If by that you mean M is true. Then you have a problem because if M is true it means T is true by virtue of (2). However T can only be true by formal argument and citing ordinary textbooks. At no point have you provided a formal logical argument for M and not only have you provided no ordinary textbook cites BUT you specifically stated that M can't be demonstrated with ordinary textbooks.
let me simplify your formula there @sarkeizen,,if M is my anti-kelvin statementM (for moronic) can be any statement.
Hi All,Mr. Hardcastle have you conducted any experiments to confirm your current ideas?
Updated site
www.quentron.com
I am happy to report that I have figured out how to make the Sebby work at room temp, and at high output.
Sebby is now public property so those interested in building their own home power system might want to try out the new sebby when I publish it. I figure an investment of only a few thousand (not to me) could provide 2kW of 24/7 power.
Nothing yet to publicly share re quenco.
Phil
Both T and M can be demonstratedIncorrect. T as you have stated it. Can not be demonstrated purely empirically, furthermore the only form of evidence which will satisfy T is a textbook cite. Both these problems have been proved several times in this thread.
erSo in other words you can't support the True Profitis Statement. Which means you lost. :D
do me a fave and refill my glass esprit while you paw through the textbooks?:D
your criteria isnt the only way to support textbooksNothing about my criteria. It's your criteria in your True Statement of Profitis. Which require an ordinary textbook. Now if you were wrong about that, that's fine. You can just say so.
l see its disgustingly textbooktised.If you have a cite from an ordinary textbook which supports the True Statement of Profitis.. Then feel free to provide it, however before you said you couldn't do this. Which is probably true and makes me right. :D
my statement @sarkeizen.the last one...is either unrelated to the True Profitis Statement or unproved. You can't have both. This has been proved.
not until you destroy my statement @sarkeizen..the last oneAs you said it's either irrelevant to the True Profitis Statement or has no cogent argument. Do you usually go around attempting to disprove irrelevant things or things which have no cogent argument?
it is highly relevantNot to the True Profitis Statement which is what is being discussed or if it is then there's no cogent argument for it.
i cannot come to you with a textbook argument for a 2nd law breach using textbook wordsSounds like you're conceding my point concerning the True Profitis Statement. If the True Profitis Statement is false. That you can't simply use logic and textbooks alone to NECESSITATE the existence and ability to build a battery which will last eternally and continually.
i told you i can use textbooks and formality ALONE to substantiate all 2 of my statements in one shot: in the LAST PROFITIS STATEMENT.It can't. In fact you said so yourself.
the ipod statement can be validated by working your way down the last profitis statementSorry, I've laid out a formal logical proof showing you to be incorrect. If you have a problem with that then you should probably consult the proof.
@sarkeizen.apologies.you have laid down exactly zero formal textbook proofMy formal logical proof is has been posted several times now. Do you need to see it again? It demonstrates that the only statements you can make other than the True Profitis Statement are either not equivalent to it (and therefore irrelevant to the discussion) or provided with no cogent argument.
we,re not interested in 'logical' proofYes, logic is apparently not something that you have very much experience with. I'm more than happy to step you through the proof. I understand completely that your...inexperience...may be difficult for you to overcome.
no mr sarkeizen..you are to be badly,badly dissapointed if you think that some made up and generally poorly defined statement is irrelevant to the True Profitis Statement..Fun :D We can prove you wrong again:
Very persistent, though... that's got to count for something, right?Perhaps in the same way banging ones head against a wall counts towards a contusion. :)
::)
you can prove and have proved exactly zilch thusfar.Can you point to a lemma in my proof that does not force the next step? Nope. So my proof stands. :D Which means I've proved at least one thing. That you have moved the discussion exactly nowhere from where it started four months ago. It's kind of an achievement really. To post so much and be able to say so incredibly close to nothing at all. :D :D :D
people will start to believe mySorry, not interested. Everyone in the world could believe you or start believing you or start believing you directly as a result of my action or inaction and it wouldn't bother me. That's one of the benefits of using logic. It doesn't matter what people believe, accepting the True Profitis Statement would still be the irrational thing to do. :D
you contradict yourself too! You say it doesnt matter what people believe then immediately after say that accepting my statement would be irrational?Yawn. Tell you what. Ask someone who understands English better than you do. Perhaps a six year old? They'll explain it to you. :D :D
Your lemmas force zipCan you show me a problem in the proof? Nope. :D :D
We here are interested in the topic not your dribble.No offense but what Phillip posts is just as repetitive and dull, the only difference is in frequency. I could easy show this with post after vacuous post of his and his similar inability to argue his point.
Find a live chat room and discuss it or decide to drop it.IMHO this is harmless fun which pretty much describes the vast majority of what goes on at Overunity. Let's not kid ourselves, nobody here is doing serious research. Almost nobody seems to, from where I stand have the slightest idea as to how.
Since all I am arguing is that you can't support that statement strictly using textbooks and formal logic.
@sarkeizen.i cannot come to you with a textbook argument for a 2nd law breach using textbook words
Thanks Hope.Mr. Hardcastle the ideas on your web site remain untested. Have you considered that unless tests validate your ideas that you may be wrong?
Back to the topic of this thread,
www.quentron.com
I have posted a schematic, some plots, and an explanation of the breakthrough Sebby Ice design on the site.
Also I am posting details of the room temp Sebby experiment.
I will be working to add to the info on the site for some time to come.
We are encouraging groups from around the World to become manufacturers of this open technology.
Phil
(snip)
IMHO this is harmless fun which pretty much describes the vast majority of what goes on at Overunity. Let's not kid ourselves, nobody here is doing serious research. Nobody seems to, from where I stand have the slightest idea as to how.
(snip)
Cheers. :D
So the whole Stanford NanoFab Lab thing didn't work out so well, did it. They are still laughing about you there, you know.
Aww... I'm crushed. :-\ :'( :'( :(Edited the post...added "almost". ;)
;) 8)
Thanks Hope.
Back to the topic of this thread,
www.quentron.com
I have posted a schematic, some plots, and an explanation of the breakthrough Sebby Ice design on the site.
Also I am posting details of the room temp Sebby experiment.
I will be working to add to the info on the site for some time to come.
We are encouraging groups from around the World to become manufacturers of this open technology.
Phil
@hollander,
You are talking absolute rubbish.
You clearly know zip about thermionic emission and surface physics.
High negative bias to cathodes and the corresponding reduction of work function is peer reviewed science.
There are real world device based on such.
It's statements like that TK that make me wonder why you REALLY are here.
Why are you REALLY here? For the Lulz?I know I'm here for the arguing and watching how people convince themselves of something crazy or preserve their belief in something crazy. :D
I know I'm here for the arguing and watching how people convince themselves of something crazy or preserve their belief in something crazy. :D
Some things I've learned...
-There's an almost palpable shift when people argue "defensively". They no longer define their terms. Often try to change the subject. This may not mean they are right or wrong but it does tell me that they're not confident.
-People have a tendency toward complex systems rather than simple ones. Rather than attempting to find the simplest case where some effect happens, some idea is correct, etc.. they try to create some very complex system.
-People have some weird biases. For example, here "building things" is some badge of honor. If you aren't in some workshop attempting to create something that probably won't work then you are something less than those who aren't. Another one is what I call the "tinkering" bias. The idea that things "almost work" you just need to find a slightly better X. Which to me says "the problem is largely solved" however given the subject matter of this board that seems ludicrous.
I'm REALLY here because I'm hoping that someday, somebody might actually show some valid _evidence_ that supports their claims of overunity outputs. Like real data from valid experiments, properly performed to test a well-formulated potentially falsifiable hypothesis. So far, this has been as rare as hen's teeth.
A secondary reason is that I hope to be able to help people to accomplish that end, by directing them out of blind alleys, by helping them use and interpret their test equipment properly, sometimes even by attempting "replications" myself, if the work fits with my education and skillset and doesn't cost too much. It's kind of like a busman's holiday, since I was engaged professionally in that kind of work for many years, and still sometimes do it for money, when I can drag myself away from looking at this website.
When people start disrespecting and insulting me, though, after it has become evident that they can't show data that supports their claims, or they refuse to formulate proper hypotheses to test.... I feel free to engage in a little pointed mockery, in the hope that the person will "show me the sausages" or admit he doesn't have any to show. But really, this never affects the claimants except to make them stomp their feet and turn blue, but it does emphasize to the observers that there may be problems with the claims.
Why are you REALLY here? For the Lulz?
I'm REALLY here because I'm hoping that someday, somebody might actually show some valid _evidence_ that supports their claims of overunity outputs. Like real data from valid experiments, properly performed to test a well-formulated potentially falsifiable hypothesis. So far, this has been as rare as hen's teeth.
A secondary reason is that I hope to be able to help people to accomplish that end, by directing them out of blind alleys, by helping them use and interpret their test equipment properly, sometimes even by attempting "replications" myself, if the work fits with my education and skillset and doesn't cost too much. It's kind of like a busman's holiday, since I was engaged professionally in that kind of work for many years, and still sometimes do it for money, when I can drag myself away from looking at this website.
When people start disrespecting and insulting me, though, after it has become evident that they can't show data that supports their claims, or they refuse to formulate proper hypotheses to test.... I feel free to engage in a little pointed mockery, in the hope that the person will "show me the sausages" or admit he doesn't have any to show. But really, this never affects the claimants except to make them stomp their feet and turn blue, but it does emphasize to the observers that there may be problems with the claims.
Why are you REALLY here? For the Lulz?
Another is to help prevent some of the usual Internet behavior that results in an idea or a build getting squashed before it has the chance to be fully explored just because some people think they know everything or they are sure it can't be done.How do you know that an idea has been "fully explored" or not? As far as I can tell here this problem isn't much of a problem. People have absolutely no issue with deciding to spend time and money on something regardless of how sane the idea is.
Ah, the old "skeptic effect" again.
I wonder how many Free Energy Overunity devices have been utterly squelched, suppressed, hidden away from public sight, because some mean old skeptics on an internet forum somewhere manage to keep the inventor away from his work by posting on the forum.
Skeptics have powers beyond even those of the MiBs! We can suppress innovation just by asking questions on teh internest!
Does anyone remember "elecar" by the way? I'm sure he's off manufacturing his patented selfrunning not-a-SMOT --- if he can stand the noise it makes. Don't you think? He pulled himself away from this forum and its few skeptics and he went off somewhere and just got down to his own work and has made his selfrunning magnet motor and is on the short list for the MacArthur Foundation Genius Award. Hasn't he?
It would seem that some do consider all Skeptics to have unnatural powers.
This was an amusing thread, it is a pity its over. Does anyone know whether Mr. Hardcastle simply disappeared with the funds of investors, or whether he's already in jail? Or was his last charge of Quenco finally successful, and he sits now frozen at 0 K in his lab, because Quenco converted all the heat into electric power?
AFAIK, Mr. Hardcastle burned his own money on this. He's not a fraud like Wayne Travis.Why do you think so? BTW, is Mr.Philip Hardcastle his real identity? If I remember well he claimed to be working with the Stanford University, and been Australian, but I never managed to find any reference. Is there his CV available anywhere on the web?
That is my understanding as well. Mr. Hardcastle is a true believer in his folly. He did have a short go at a business that he thought would fund his project. The business called Buddink did not work out.
AFAIK, Mr. Hardcastle burned his own money on this. He's not a fraud like Wayne Travis.
Why do you think so? BTW, is Mr.Philip Hardcastle his real identity? If I remember well he claimed to be working with the Stanford University, and been Australian, but I never managed to find any reference. Is there his CV available anywhere on the web?He filed a few patent applications under his name. He wrote some cranky letters to his PM in .au etc. He's a honest but IMO deluded guy.
Why do you think so? BTW, is Mr.Philip Hardcastle his real identity? If I remember well he claimed to be working with the Stanford University, and been Australian, but I never managed to find any reference. Is there his CV available anywhere on the web?That is his real name Philip Julian Hardcastle. He is Australian. I believe that he was at one time a geologist for an oil company.
I popped in to read this thread and was astounded at the idle talk.Mr. Hardcastle, I thought that I had read somewhere that you were a geologist. I stand corrected.
I have never claimed to be a geologist.
I was from 1981 to 1984 a Senior Geophysicist for Esso Australia, whilst there I received 3 promotions and was considered to be an industry expert in my special fields, I left Esso and started up a number of engineering companies, and then a coal mining drilling and a directional drilling equipment company making the World's most advanced directional drilling system that I designed and manufactured.
In 1996 I left the coal industry to embark upon a quest to end the reliance on oil and coal, to create cheap power for the 3rd World, along the way I made some important discoveries that I have for 14 years been pursuing. I have lived off my savings for those years, it has cost me at least $1M, to suggest that I have defrauded anyone is outrageous and libel, as said the reality is that I have, and still am donating years of my life to provide a working and mature technology based on real science, not on pseudo science and mumbo jumbo.
I stopped posting here on a regular basis when this thread was taken over by trolls.
At the appropriate time I will provide an update and links to a commerce site where people can purchase products.
In the meantime I would appreciate that people do not go to the vile extent of cowardly accusing or speculating that I am either wrong, a fool, or a fraudster. I use my real name and your comments are therefore capable of causing me harm or hurt. Imagine how you would feel if you used your real name only to find that a search of your name on Google turns up discussions about your character (baseless casual speculations that some might take as accusations).
Phil H
@MarkE,It matters not what goes on behind the scenes or in someone's imagination. Once claims are made they are either supported by credible evidence or they are not. There is nothing wrong with people evaluating available evidence, or the lack thereof once a claim has been made. If you have a hard time with that, then you should have waited to make your claims until such time as you were able and prepared to substantiate them.
Again you choose to make comments you assume are valid, you do not and cannot know all that is going on behind the scenes, nor do you have a right to know. I will reveal all when I choose to.
Since when did objective evaluation become a thing of malice? Do you suffer a persecution complex? Again, you made claims that you could not substantiate and still have not substantiated. There are very good reasons to believe that you will never be able to substantiate the idea that on both sides of a very thin material you drive heat towards the center of the material, and on top of that, the heat converts into electricity that you can have perform work elsewhere. That amounts to not just one but several extraordinary claims. I am not aware of any substance you have shown for any of those claims. If you could deliver on just one of your claims that would be a very big deal.
I will make one concession, the first batch of Quenco did not operate as predicted, but the work and research is ongoing and I am more than happy with where I am. You can choose to call me a failure but that is nothing more than either your prejudice or malice showing.
As I have yet to see any reputable third party validate any of your claims, I think it is quite fair to state that your ideas have not panned out. Again, why the persecution complex? Why is this about you personally? an idea stands up or it doesn't.
In any case what does it serve you to make a smear on my name saying without actual facts to support your stand, that my ideas have not panned out?
Publish or perish. You can say what you want about unnamed persons engaging in unspecified activities and arriving at unspecified conclusions all day long. That is not how science operates. science is transparent: A hypothesis is subjected to falsification efforts. If all reasonable efforts at falsification fail, then the hypothesis is held true.You put yourself in a pickle when you announce extraordinary claims but fail to supply supporting evidence. If you were to have made a great discovery then bully for you. If you expect rational people to believe your claims then you need to back those claims with appropriate evidence.
I can say to you my work has been reviewed by a panel of scientists (some 5 professors and the head of the school of Physics) at a reputable Australian university and it was not found wanting, of course they were privy to all the facts. This statement is 100% true but you may choose to say I am lying.
There is that persecution complex thing raising its ugly head again. Just because the available evidence weighs against you doesn't mean that people who recognize that are calling you a liar. It means they, me included, are saying that you are wrong until and if you ever produce strong evidence for your extraordinary claims.
My final statement on this is that if you want to call me a liar at least have the guts to publish your full name and email.
Well, Overunity.com is a pure peer-reviewed science blog with more than half dozen nobel prize winners claiming the "truth" ?Strong evidence for something, even an extraordinary claim stands on its own. No one can bring serious question upon that which has strong evidence in its favor. What I often see are extraordinary claims with little or no supporting evidence at all. I find it curious that there are many who implore upon the community to think creatively which is important, then turn around and and ask people to give up critical reasoning. Breakthroughs don't happen on wishes. They aren't stopped by critical thinking. Critical thinking is a very important part of the discovery process. Setting critical thinking aside hobble's one's ability to separate fact from fiction. Fictional claims to breakthroughs may make pleasant fantasies, but do nothing to better the world.
Other people might say that ou.com is a special forum for collective mythical misunderstanding of relativistic electrodynamics.
Lately some threads ended up in a Kindergarten of grown up "skeptics" trying to discredit whatever somebody dared to claim.
Do we need a forum for that ?
I stopped posting here on a regular basis when this thread was taken over by trolls.It's funny how people fabricate reasons they are not doing something. Anyone who actually reads this thread end-to-end will see that the vast majority of Philips postings could be expressed as "Wait and see" and "I am right why question me". It's pretty easy to see how that quickly runs out of steam without resorting to "It was the Trolz who kept me from being here"
At the appropriate time I will provide an update and links to a commerce site where people can purchase products.If "never" is an appropriate time then that's probably one of the most likely predictions you've made.
In the meantime I would appreciate that people do not go to the vile extent of cowardly accusing or speculating that I am either wrong, a fool, or a fraudster.Saying "This is be here on day X" or "I will have millions of dollars before month Y" does make you at least WRONG. Saying it year after year is evidence that you are a fool or a fraudster. I get that somehow you don't have much more than high-school level maths (or a ridiculously narrow subset above that) but considering how often you want to be respected on your credentials it's interesting how quick you are to discard other peoples.
(baseless casual speculations that some might take as accusations).Either met expectations increase your odds of being correct or they don't. I expect someone who's wrong, a fool, delusional or a fraudster to make many predictions and meet none of them. Hence the likelihood of you being one of those three must increase with every failure. Ergo such accusations are not baseless. QED.
Take it for what you will: Mr. Hardcastle's web site is gone completely. EasyWhoIs shows that his web site's former URL www.quentron.com is available.I guess all we have left are wonderful memories...like this. (http://web.archive.org/web/20121106005759/http://quentron.com/)
I guess all we have left are wonderful memories...like this. (http://web.archive.org/web/20121106005759/http://quentron.com/)I don't know what possessed him to think that he would get a big temperature drop through a very small distance into the middle of something. It would really have been something if he had first observed something like that happening instead of just hypothesizing that it would happen. Unless he has completely spent out his retirement nest egg, I doubt we have seen the last of Mr. Hardcastle.
I don't know what possessed him to think that he would get a big temperature drop through a very small distance into the middle of something. It would really have been something if he had first observed something like that happening instead of just hypothesizing that it would happen. Unless he has completely spent out his retirement nest egg, I doubt we have seen the last of Mr. Hardcastle.He claims to have observed it on some other device. People here have had all sorts of ideas as to the mechanism, which are hard to determine if they coincide with Phillips ideas chiefly because Philips ideas are poorly described and he doesn't really explain much.
As I have followed the story he's had a bunch of different ideas all directed at cheating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. He built some sort of experiment a few years ago using a vacuum tube. When his web site was up he posted and then withdrew descriptions of his experiment from time to time.Yes, the vacuum tube "experiment" is ridiculous. There was some other device he claimed to have built which he claimed to have observed a 2LOT violation. This was pre-quenco. After several quenco failures he claimed he was making a larger version of his initial device. Then he claimed he was going to sell them. Then when nobody was interested. His website shut down.
Its not a question of if the kelvin statement is flawed.there's plenty evidence of that as I have shown earlier in the thread.This might give Phillip a run for his money for "Most inaccurate statement in this thread".
Its not a question of if the kelvin statement is flawed.there's plenty evidence of that as I have shown earlier in the thread.its rather a question of if mr hardcastle was ever able to successfully achieve a selfsustained thermionic system,big or small .that is what we understand was the stated goal.a kelvin breach,when it happens,is not going to care about width parameters @mark E.I am sorry but I don't see anywhere that Mr. Hardcastle has shown any hint of a 2nd Law violation.
Yes, the vacuum tube "experiment" is ridiculous. There was some other device he claimed to have built which he claimed to have observed a 2LOT violation. This was pre-quenco. After several quenco failures he claimed he was making a larger version of his initial device. Then he claimed he was going to sell them. Then when nobody was interested. His website shut down.The only device I ever saw him talk about that he said he had tested was the vacuum tube device.
The link below leads to more information and resources about PJH's previous inventions - written up by a cold fusion enthusiast.That sounds close to what I know about the history. I didn't know about him asking PESN to pull down articles.
https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg71402.html (https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg71402.html)
Sadly I have to agree with you there @mark E. We must bear in mind that massive trial-and-error experiments would have to be done for thinfilm technology to be anywhere near successful plus huge amount of cash,no easy feat.phillips angle to keep everyone hanging with excitement,but with no practical demos,is quite intrigueing.No amount of experimentation can make a fundamentally flawed concept work. Mr. Hardcastle has not shown any basis that makes sense as to why his ideas should work. He also has not demonstrated that any of his ideas work in contravention to conventional theory. If you find that behavior intriguing, then enjoy.
No @markE mr hardcastle has shown sufficient basis to warrent at least some investigation because there is no fundamental reason why a system should be limited to one entropy state.I give him a thumbsup for that but he has shown no proof(to you and me) and unfortunately that's all that matters(for you and me).I disagree with what you say about experimentation,this thing must be looked into in the same way that i had looked into the fundamentaly related karpen device with total success.The last time that we had a discussion many posts went back and forth where you insisted there was evidence for claims of yours yet provided none. If you ever find that you have evidence that supports Mr. Hardcastle's ideas I am sure that he and many others would love to see it. Mr. Hardcastle's ideas fly in the face of established theory and he hasn't provided any evidence that I know of that supports his ideas over established theory. His long string of unrealized claims strongly suggests that the problem is with Mr. Hardcastle and not existing theory.
Well @markE I did provide a textbook-compatible statement that you could not physicaly or theoretically disprove,AND you`re a scientist.that says alot.I had wanted to join forces with mr hardcastle a few years back but he was on his own mission.I don't hold that against him. there is a certain respect between all demonologists.how do you know for sure that none of his claims were realised?it may be in his interests to fade from the limelight with you and me thinking he,s got zip.we just don't know what's going on behind the scenes.all we know is that on this thread,no proof was given.Whatever "textbook-compatible" is supposed to mean. You promised over and over again that you could provide an actual citation and failed to do so. Mr. Hardcastle has been unable to prove any of his 2nd Law violation claims. I am sure that he would be delighted if you or anyone else could prove one of his claims for him.
Textbook-compatible means you can take a textbook and check if you see a flaw in my statement @markE.you won't find one aside from a 2lot violation.you don't need a citation.what you need is to see if you can physically disprove my statement.or theoretically if you wish.No citation is no citation. You promised such a citation and never delivered. What is ordinary and already accepted as proven does not need to be reproven. It is extraordinary claims that challenge what is ordinary and accepted that requires proof. The burden of that proof falls on those who make the extraordinary claims. If you can and want to meet that burden then the choice to do so is yours. If you don't whether because you can't or you don't want to then your extraordinary claims carry no weight.
@markE the weight of my extra-ordinary claim sir,lies in the fact that you,as a scientist,cannot physically nor mentally counter my extra-ordinary claim.as simple as that.the last scientific statement that I made in this thread still stands,unchallenged.We have been through this many times before. If you suffer the delusion that it is up to others to prove the ordinary, then you are sadly mistaken.
No @sarkeizen.phillip showed a few pictures,and some words.I showed a textbook statement and a video.quite a difference wouldn't you say?Only if you're stupid. Which you are. :D
Dr.Daniel Sheehan http://www.sandiego.edu/cas/about_the_college/faculty/biography.php?ID=485 has demonstrated (as far as I am concerned) that LoT2 can be broken; he is not confident that a practical device can be made."Demonstrated" must mean something different to you than to me. I watched a lecture of his from 2011 (which was given at some conference along with a lecture by someone else on "distant healing"?!) and he stated unequivocally that 2LOT has **never** been violated experiementally. An interesting bit was in the beginning where he mentions the inductive problem with proving 2LOT. Effectively any empirical fact which can be applied to an arbitrary number of cases requires an infinite amount of evidence to validate.
So then what kind of evidence would satisfy you that demons exist @sarkeizen. What are your standards for evidenceOne way would be for you to produce a valid formal logical argument which ends in "Ordinary textbooks necessitate the existence of and ability to build a battery which would power an ipod-like device eternally and continually". However you said
@sarkeizen.i cannot come to you with a textbook argument for a 2nd law breach using textbook wordsSo I guess that's out. Moron. :D
Or YOU can use a textbook to try find flaw in my statement @ sarkeizen.any gas electrode overpotential differential galvanic cell,NECESSITATES a 2lot violation.you have a nasty habit of partially quoting peoples statements around here.
Or YOU can use a textbook to try find flaw in my statement...and if I didn't that would not significantly adjust the odds of you being correct. Hence what I suggest is good evidence and what you suggest is stupid. QED.
Its not stupid if you look into it.I'm saying your test for evidence can't significantly shift the probability that you are correct.
your inability or ability to textbook-bash it increases or decreases probability dramaticaly.Sadly your math is worse than Phillips. How do you get so terrible at it? Do you actually have to spend time taking courses that un-teach probability theory? Or is it just a successive series of sharp blows to the head?
if I point to one item and declare it a 2lot violation people might laugh,a handful might take it serious.if I point to over 100 different combinaton of items and declare them a 2lot violationI love this answer. Remember the question at hand is "Why don't I use your standard of evidence?". Profitis has already admitted that she is unable to meet my standard of evidence. I've stated that her belief that my ability to prove or disprove some things has no significant effect on their probability of being true. For example I am probably unable to prove the Reimann Hypothesis. Does that make it untrue? Profitis would apparently say "yes" but that would of course be an exceptionally stupid thing. As I am also unable to prove it's inverse. Which would according to Profitis reasoning make it's inverse untrue. However since the Reimann hypothesis must be either be true or it's inverse must be true. Then the Profitis system of reasoning can not possibly be correct.
Your using it by not using it man.As I said you proved me right. You have no idea why your "100 combinations" would have no significantly better odds than one.
No I just proved that sarkeizen is dancing around my statement and not on it @mark EDude you said...
if I point to one item and declare it a 2lot violation people might laugh,a handful might take it serious.if I point to over 100 different combinaton of items and declare them a 2lot violation,you'd betterThat is exactly what we were talking about. Clearly you think there's a significant difference between one thing you hope is a 2LOT violation and 100. I predicted that you don't know why 1 or 100 or 100 000 don't matter.
you're arguing probabilitiesNo YOU'RE arguing probabilities. You said that if I can't determine that some statement is FALSE then (by some virtue of the statement) it is massively likely to be TRUE. That is arguing that the PROBABILITY of it being true is HIGH.
There's no math required.just plain logic.if I point to one item and declare it a 2lot violation people might laugh,a handful might take it serious.if I point to over 100 different combinaton of items and declare them a 2lot violation,you'd better be damn well prepared to offer a counterexplanation otherwise your going to trip people up @sarkeizen.the statements seriousness is proportional to its broadness in this case.Three men step up to the roulette wheel at an honest . The wheel is a USA type: 00, 0, 1-36. The house pays 35:1 for a win. The first man declares 4 winning numbers by placing $1. bets on each. The second man declares 10 winning numbers by placing $1. bets on each. The third man declares 20 winning numbers by placing $1. bets on each. Each man plays 100 spins. How much money is each man likely to win or lose based on his betting scheme? What are the winnings / losses of each man as a percentage of the total bets each man placed? What would happen if each man played 1000 spins, or 10,000 spins?
Yet you cannot deny that the human element makes it statisticaly much much more importantLOL!
Yet you cannot deny that the human element makes it statisticaly much much more important @markE.at least we now have importance,if not evidence.the question is: now that we have human importance,will that be sufficient to prompt mr sarkeizen to engage my statement directly? We wait and see..I can and I do. Nature does not behave differently because of anything some person or some people think or want.
human thought didn't affect progress in science?MarkE's point appears to be that human thought is irrelevant to matters of fact (e.g. does your battery actually run eternally or is it just your imagination) and mine is that human opinion, thought and intuition are regularly demonstrated to be inferior to even simple data analysis.
Lol are you kidding me markE and mr sarkeizen.human thought didn't affect progress in science?politics didn't effect scientific progress?where did you get this idea from?the political importance of my statement remains at an all time high unless it is countered guys.I'm sorry but thats just the way the cookie crumbles in the real world.there is a huge political pressure and need to counter my statement.LOL.
Instead of standing there and laughing why don't you help me disprove my sweeping statement @markE.help me to crash my own statement mr fellow scientist.LOL.
so its more rational to ignore a sweeping statement on over 100 batteries of the same class than to tackle it headon?I am tackling a question head on and it's one you asked me: "What standard of evidence would be sufficient for me to believe in a Maxwell's Demon device".
So then what kind of evidence would satisfy you that demons exist @sarkeizen. What are your standards for evidenceJust to refresh your memory. This is the question you asked. I'm interested in discussing this. Especially if there's some alternate standard of evidence which is equal or better than my "provide a formal argument...".
So then what kind of evidence would satisfy you that demons exist @sarkeizen. What are your standards for evidenceJust to refresh your memory. This is the question you asked. I'm interested in discussing this. Especially if there's some alternate standard of evidence which is equal or better than my "provide a formal argument...".
You don't think that uhmm,maybe,just maybe one or two,or 3 or 4,or 5 or 6 of the 100 karpen relatives statisticaly have a power density of ten times greater @sarkeizen?......................... Or morE?I'm fascinated with your reaction to my last post btw.Are you no longer willing to talk about a standard of evidence? That would figure. Each time you get trapped you change the subject.
Are you no longer willing to talk about statistics mr sarkeizen.Are you trying to say that talking about statistics is more important than talking about standards of evidence?
statistics become the standard of evidence.You know, just once it wouldn't hurt if you attempted to learn something about what you're talking about. Instead of just making shit up. Statistics is about the analysis and presentation of data. A standard of evidence is about what evidence is sufficient to accept a hypothesis.
Standard of evidence,,Please describe the standard which you believe makes a hypothesis highly likely. This should be a list of criteria, not some moronic narrative.
1)The first pile sparked debate many many years ago.it continues today,unresolved.So according to you:
2)the other piles have been brought to the threads attention many many months ago,the same problem,unresolved.
3)the anti2lot hypothesis about the unresolvedness remains unresolved.
4)the piles exist.
5) the whole class of piles exist and are still coming into existance.
6)there is not a single unusual thing in the first half of the hypothesis,only the 2nd half declaring a 2lot violation.
any simple battery in existanceIn what sense are you using the term "exist"? Do you mean a) It has been built and works in exactly the way profitis in his illucid imagination believe it does or b) someone somewhere built something and claims that it works in some particular way?
means usuality won't do and unusual more likely truePlease re-write this part in English.
I mean a piece of gold and a piece of plat shoved into electrolyte in presence of air and sealed off.So if something like that had been built but nobody who was debating it knew that. Your principle "If it exists and people have been debating it for a long time makes it highly-likely to be true." would still be true. Right?
then a piece of enriched uranium shoved in a closed box couldve done same and there wouldve been no debate to begin with.But people can debate something that hasn't been built. Right? Clearly if people had Karpen's design, or notes or had talked to him about the subject or just out-of-the-blue and entirely independently thought such a thing might work. They could still debate it. Virtually any aspect of science where true equipoise exists there is debate as to the outcome. Many of these debates last a very long time. Just off the top of my head I can think of over 100 such debates in my field alone.
Why debate a piece of gold and plat shoved in electrolyte under air and then come to absolute zero consensus conclusionSo you agree you can debate something for a very long time that has never been built. Right? Good. Moving on then...
that WASN'T ALL THEY KNEWSo, in other words what? No, it wouldn't make the hypothesis highly likely? Good to know.
that WASN'T ALL THEY KNEWAgain clearly you think the probability of a hypothesis goes up ONLY if some SPECIFIC information is communicated to the debaters. How about you tell me what information has to be communicated to the debaters in order for the probability of the hypothesis to be very high?
Please post there on Karpen cellsDearest Phillip,
I believe the only evidence that can satisfy a person who believes a violation of 2LOT to be impossible, is to have that person test an actual device.So isn't that an implied claim that the vast majority of people in the world, even people who have only kindergarten math. Are capable of creating and executing a test which would have a high probability of being correct?
I will post here a link where members can obtain such a device from a distributor, but it will not be before August 20th 2014 for legal reasons.I have a hard time getting through the summer without looking forward to you failing at the end of it.
I am happy to discuss the general issue of 2LOT and Maxellian Demons on the KARPEN PILE thread.Are you saying that your quenco is NOT a Maxwell's Demon? If it is, why wouldn't we discuss it here?
How credible a test for a claim is rests on the strength of the evidence that the test generates in relation to the claim.Mark, if I wasn't straight I'd seriously want to make out with you right now. Yes!! A test - any test - can only shift our confidence we have in our hypothesis. The overall probability of our hypothesis is the conditional probability of the hypothesis and the test. This is essentially what Bayes Theorem connotes.
Just the same, I would be happy to help him work out solid test protocols if he wants my help.My advice would be to make them as strict as possible. The mathematical reason behind statements like: "Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence" is the simple fact that given a test with a false positive rate of 1 in 1 000 000 and two hypotheses H1 (very likely to be true P(H1) = 0.8 ) and H2 (very likely to be untrue P(H2)= 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000008).
My advice would be to make them as strict as possible. The mathematical reason behind statements like: "Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence" is the simple fact that given a test with a false positive rate of 1 in 1 000 000 and two hypotheses H1 (very likely to be true P(H1) = 0.8 ) and H2 (very likely to be untrue P(H2)= 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000008).A lot of people have trouble with the (1 - N) that frequents statistics.
H1 has a 1 in 2 000 000 chance of getting a false positive.
H2 has approximately a 1 in 1 000 000 chance of getting a false positive.
So evidence for H2 is worth only *half* the evidence for H1.
I think the only sensible reply to people trying to ascribe probabilities that have no actual knowledgeSince we're back to not actually speaking my name...which is kind of cool it makes me feel like some kind of diety or Lovecraftian mythos. I'll assume you're talking about me. Every prediction I've made about your producing quenco has been correct. Right? Not one wrong prediction from me. Period. 100% correct. Right? Every prediction on the same issue, by you has been wrong. Right? 100% There is not one working quenco.
is that of the PM Benjamin Disraeli;Because it's always good to get your advice on mathematics from politicians and amateurs instead of actual mathematicians. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill)
I will use the British Royal position of making no comment, but with a slightly cheeky smile....to cover up your inevitable failure. Were I giving odds that you were a charlatan, your ability to adopt the same ridiculous posturing every summer for the past what three? four? years. Would shift the odds in favor of that conclusion.
As I stated (stupidly) before I am happy to debate M Demons on the Karpen thread (which has nothing to do with Maxwell's Demon), but not here (on a thread where I claim to have constructed a Maxwell's Demon)For once Philip, you and I are on the same page.
Pointing out that the Karpen thread died out almost as soon as it started.I do not think that Profitis and Mr. Hardcastle are linked.
This seems expected as, for Philip it was all about keeping this thread for propaganda. As opposed to discussing Quenco - which isn't allowed. I could easily go through the thread history and find all the quotes but it's kind of obvious most of his responses are of the form "shut up you have no information so you can have no opinion and I won't tell you anything". Yawn.
As for Profitis I think he was pretty much about the trolling, assuming he isn't Philip or someone linked to him.
I do not think that Profitis and Mr. Hardcastle are linked.Profitis uses incredibly stupid spelling and grammar. However it's clearly an effort on his part as when he forgets his prose snaps back to something that might pass for normal. His errors aren't consistent either, if you didn't spend a lot of time around people who English isn't their primary language you might not realize that the errors they make are *consistent*. i.e. People who's primary language doesn't inflect for plurals tend to depluralize etc....
Profitis uses incredibly stupid spelling and grammar. However it's clearly an effort on his part as when he forgets his prose snaps back to something that might pass for normal. His errors aren't consistent either, if you didn't spend a lot of time around people who English isn't their primary language you might not realize that the errors they make are *consistent*. i.e. People who's primary language doesn't inflect for plurals tend to depluralize etc....Profitis' strikes me as someone who posts mostly to see if he can get a reaction. He doesn't seem to care very much if he plays a fool as long as it draws a response. When he kept promising to provide references for his claims but never did, I concluded he wasn't serious. His free floating drift into and out of literate speech seems appears to be an act of some sort. I don't know if he does it to: obfuscate, see if people notice, or if he just finds it amusing.
So Profitis appears to be going out of his way to seem different than he is. That doesn't make him Philip but it does seem to mean he is trying not to be recognized.
Profitis' strikes me as someone who posts mostly to see if he can get a reaction.I think it's well possible profitis is simply a troll but he also spends a lot of time attempting to get people into a very specific argument. The momentary divergence into standards of evidence was interesting until he gravitated back to what appears to be the only argument he knows.
OTOH, Mr. Hardcastle is usually very serious. I think WYSIWYG with him.I think it's pretty obvious that Philip is either the worst manager I have ever heard of or he's knowingly deceitful or again perhaps a troll. Every time he comes up with a scheme or deadline. It's always so poorly thought out. It's immensely hard to believe that he has even the slightest idea of what it takes to bring a product to market.
Its not about trolling mr sarkeizen.its about being the first guy in internet history to effectively match the karpen pile up with modern day textbooks.Philip doesn't like you trolling in his propaganda thread. :D :D :D
Its not about trolling mr sarkeizen.its about being the first guy in internet history to effectively match the karpen pile up with modern day textbooks. you are going to have to explain to the audience why the power-burst-pattern of this class of cells exactly matches my given explanations hand-in-glove.Conduct experiments. See if they prove your claim. Publish. Become famous if experiments back your extraordinary claims.
the lab that shoves me in it and pays will......likely lose money. Dude, you're a loser who can barely do high-school math and can't produce a single cite to usefully demonstrate your position.
All possible from a top-dollar lab @markE :D.I've already published,here.You've published your results before you've conducted your experiments?
why do you want a cite for something which you can just build.Guess you forgot that the context was about you getting hired to work in a lab. Think someone will hire someone who can barely do high-school math, can not cite relevant work and when asked tells the interviewer to go and build it themselves?
You've published your results before you've conducted your experiments?Rossi did this and even sold one.
After experiments @ mark E.all diagrammed cells in this thread work as claimed.Those experiments were conducted when and by whom and documented where?
Rossi did this and even sold one.I am a big fan of Andrea "you must be a clown snake" Rossi and his now you see it now you don't million unit per year fully robotic factory.
So if you were the labchief and some random stranger told you that he could build a magical unicorn in your lab you wouldn't give him a chance @sarkeizen?just to humour him?I'd give him some thorazine and call security.
you'd get a good laugh at his own humiliation.both ways you gain something.You are stating that I'd gain something. However clearly you humiliate yourself here pretty much all the time. So we don't get that benefit and it costs us in labspace and materials. Those things could be put to work for people who have work which can be usefully judged as likely to be successful. Your work, by your own admission can't be.
years ago, by me,documented here @markE.your not a gambler? you sounded like a roulette numbers expert a few posts ago.what would you have to lose?nothing,because either the guy would build a magical unicorn or you'd get a good laugh at his own humiliation.both ways you gain something.Or he's a psychotic nutter who presents a danger to himself and others. I think the thorazine and security approach is safest. As for you, you should conduct your experiments before you offer conclusions on their results.
Troll all you want to pointless and Sarcastic, but on 20th August I will reclaim this thread with a World shattering announcement.Yawn. Go home Philip. You are drunk.
To be perfectly frank you are both without manners or respect of others, this inane to and fro should be done on a thread for your topic.Next time call it "quentron propaganda". I'll be sure to keep my comments in the non-propaganda threads. Deal?
No more until 20th August here.or after.
Troll all you want to pointless and Sarcastic, but on 20th August I will reclaim this thread with a World shattering announcement.Mr. Hardcastle, you have made a number of announcements, and announced announcements. What you have not done is produced evidence that supports your claims. The spinny things from around 2008 never panned out. The vacuum tube thing from around 2011 did not pan out. The thin layers concept from 2012 did not pan out. If you were ever to come up with solid evidence that backs your extraordinary claims, then those claims would get much better notice.
To be perfectly frank you are both without manners or respect of others, this inane to and fro should be done on a thread for your topic.
@profitis, I asked you in the other thread to answer a simple question about the device you have been ranting on about for months, you ignored my question and came here to continue stupid bating of Sarkeizen (aka E-man). If you go back to that thread and answer my question I will respond.
No more until 20th August here.
A working replicated karpen pile or relative of a working replicated karpen pilei) A device of the kind you describe must be "capable of running an ipod-like device eternally"
I agree that there are some 2lot violating ideas that do not fit with the classic demon, I say sebithenco is one as it does not require energy to be expended to do the sorting of kinetic energies...and somehow it sorts without requiring information either. :D
I assume that you would also say that information is a form of energy and so it takes energy to sort electrons, and that furthermore the information energy cannot be conserved as eventually we will run out of paper to write entries upon and so have to erase old informationAh no. The reason that's not going to be a productive conversation is because what you've outlined is an illustration not an argument. The difference between the two is a) the reason that profitis can't believe his battery won't work forever and b) why your counter will effectively be "my thing doesn't have to do that" and c) at least few hundred pages of rather important formalisms. Since I'm already teaching a remedial math class over in the Pi=4 thread. I think there's a more productive path for us here.
This of course is the idea put forward by people before you who believe proof of the 2nd Law lies solely with information theoryThe way I would say it is: Those who consider the Physical Church-Turing Thesis to be likely true which would accept an information theory proof. If you don't then you can do what I think you're doing is postulating "substance X" which can magically decide undecidable problems.
Jumping Salmon is not going to do it.Then marbles, billiard balls, whatever. Perhaps I'm not being clear enough. What I'm asking is: Is there any macroscopic model which accurately describes your sorting mechanism?
@Sarkeizen,Mr. Hardcastle: The magnitude of an electrostatic potential does not establish on which side of the potential where the greater energy is. A good example of a PMM of the second kind that doesn't work for that very reason is the Brillioun diode. Even a zero bias diode cannot harvest Johnson Noise because of this.
Jumping Salmon is not going to do it.
I will try to explain the Sebithenco device in a few words;
Electrons having extraordinary kinetic energy (their population being significant) in room A, can escape the weak tethers (work function) that bind them, and travel to room B if they have enough remaining energy to overcome an intervening electrostatic barrier, but electrons in room B, though also having extraordinary kinetic energy, cannot do the reciprocal journey because the work function that tethers them to room B is too strong, such that there is no significant population that has sufficient energy to break their tethers and still have enough energy to overcome the intervening electrostatic barrier.
The term quantum magic is silly.Seriously? You're going to balk over a term this early in the relationship? So your worship...in your police-state-of-words can I say "quantum mechanism"? Sheeesh.
It is what it is, a ratchet.It seems pretty obvious to me that a ratchet isn't a macroscopic device which accurately describes your sorting mechanism. If it was, a real ratchet would be able to sort things for free as well. Which would put it head and shoulders above a quenco since it can also help me remove the water pump from a 1957 Mustang.
@Sarkeizen, I chose to discuss with you on the basis that you would have some manners. Since you chose to be rude and sarcastic I will end the conversation now.Philip, you have engaged in both shunning and mockery of myself and others on this board. In addition you have delivered, in a somewhat public forum an actual threat to my livelihood.
@MarkE, I think I have given before detail of the asymmetry of the Sebithenco that leads to its ratchet nature. I see no point in listening to you tell me what cannot work when I already have lots that do. In any case there will be an announcement on the subject of commercial devices on 20th August 2014.Mr. Hardcastle, I have pointed out three things:
I see no point in listeningThe problem, in a nutshell.
@Mark, you seem to think you know more than I do about the subject I am employed full time on for many years, you may mean well but you come across as being arrogant and condescending. I am comfortable with what I know and the people who I deal with professionally, and you should perhaps ask yourself why I have spent years and piles on money if I did not have some extreme reason for my confidence. It beggars belief that your advice would be news to me, or that you would imagine I would suddenly shout out that I have wasted the time of dozens of people, years of research when I should have just asked you.Mr. Hardcastle, neither my doubts nor your confidence can change nature. I have asked you if I understand a key premise of yours. I don't know why you are unwilling to say yes or no. If it is in fact your thesis that you can sort energy based on the polarity of a voltage difference, then you are at odds with Dr. Brillioun's circa 1958 paper. Perhaps you believe that you are doing something that gets around that paper. If I were you and had the intense interest that you show, I would want to know what I am up against.
I simply have nothing more to discuss with you, all I can show you is my success, and no doubt until 20th August you will continue to tell people that I am wrong, misguided, ignorant and a geologist, just as you seem to like telling everyone on this site with an idea that they are wrong.
Good luck in whatever it is that you are trying to achieve on this site through your perpetual presence.
you come across as being arrogant and condescending.Must...resist...comparison...to...darkly...colored...housewares
and you should perhaps ask yourself why I have spent years and piles on money if I did not have some extreme reason for my confidence. It beggars belief that your advice would be news to me,It is apparently news to you that rich people, educated people and even rich/educated people all waste time and money on things that are moronic. Are you sure you can't think of a single example of that? Or do you claim that every endeavor was "on to something".
or that you would imagine I would suddenly shout out that I have wasted the time of dozens of people, years of research when I should have just asked you.Well one could only hope but I agree it's not likely for you to change your mind. It's far more likely that you will storm off in a huff based on some imagined slight.
I simply have nothing more to discuss with you, all I can show you is my success, and no doubt until 20th August you will continue to tell people that I am wrongI, for one will be telling people that well after August 20th.
you should perhaps ask yourself why I have spent years and piles on money if I did not have some extreme reason for my confidence.Idea: Can someone give Miles Mathis a great deal of money to research Pi=4? Thus convincing Philip that there is some extreme reason for his confidence?
it fits perfectly into college textbooks.An assertion you've never been able to demonstrate in any useful way.
it was the textbooks.So far, no textbook cites mentioning violating 2LOT. So far no textbook cites that provide the basis of a formal argument to violating 2LOT. So far, you haven't substantiated your claim. :D
So why is it then impossible for you to point out how the textbook assertionIt's not impossible. It's just infeasible and it's infeasible because as it stands your assertion appears to be "Somewhere there exists a textbook from which a formal argument can be made for the violation of 2LOT". You could equally argue that "Somewhere there exists a textbook from which a formal argument can be made for the existence of seventeen eyed fish". Does that make the existence of seventeen eyed fish likely?
It's not impossible. It's just infeasible and it's infeasible because as it stands your assertion appears to be "Somewhere there exists a textbook from which a formal argument can be made for the violation of 2LOT". You could equally argue that "Somewhere there exists a textbook from which a formal argument can be made for the existence of seventeen eyed fish". Does that make the existence of seventeen eyed fish likely?Maybe it was an eighteen eyed fish.
Lol but it is impossible.that's what I'm saying man.No. You said "why is it impossible". It isn't. It's just infeasible since your assertion is "somewhere (but profitis won't say) there exists a textbook cite and a formal argument (but profits can't tell you) which ends in a 2LOT violation".
Lol but it is impossible.that's what I'm saying man.it is totaly impossible for you or anyone else to prevent the textbooks given spillover gradient from ending in a total anti-2lot nightmare.you are implying a net change of some sort in the system is taking place when abso-f*****g-lutely none is taking place.your 2nd law says change MUST take place.where is the change in this system taking place @sarkeizen.In order to support your position you need to show but one text book citation that states as you claim. The burden of proving an extraordinary claim falls on the claimant, which in this case is you. You have over many months of making your claim failed to show even one text book citation that supports your claim. You present yourself as unable to substantiate your extraordinary claim. Consequently, I and many others rightly dismiss your extraordinary claim.
Can I ask you a question @mark E? (-:Obviously, you just did.
I'm refering to a contact potential,s reversable thermodynamics btw @markEThose are two different things.
no I'm just asking you about the thermodynamics of the two strips alone.forget about my hands @mark E.I want to know what's going on in the strips: does one cool down and one heat up when contacted.I don't see the energy diagram for the repeatable process anywhere on the net..I haven't mentioned anything about your hands. If you wish to try and show a Second Law violation with some arrangement then state the basis of your claim.
This image betta.my only desire for now is to establish that a temperature change will happen here and that the metal plates capacitance can be arbitrarily large while the switch remain same size @markEYou have not established such a thing. For your vacuum conditions: the system is in thermal equilibrium and remains there.
Cmon @mark E.whats going to happen if we close the switch in that diagram,then open it.wheres the irreversability???????You did work charging a capacitor when you brought the plates into proximity. One time only you can discharge that energy through a switch that includes the circuit and plate resistance. Where is the reversibility? Show the two states and that with no external input energy the system can go between the one and the other freely.
So your saying that the diagrammed system under vaccuum and ideal single temperature will pass charge through the switch only once @mark E? Not repeatable? You would be correct if it werent for capacitor leakage and re-equilibrization across the vaccuum gap.its reversable.Are you having difficulty reading? I said it will only discharge once. I said nothing about whether or not oscillations take place.
The two states are cleary visible in the above diagram.state 1) open switch,neutral plates. state2) closed switch,charges plates.a fully spontaneous reversable process. Step 1) thermal equilibrium.step 2) electrochemical equilibrium accompanied by temperature change step 3)back to step 1 (capacitor leakage) @mark E. I have not failed to show reversability.LOL, well when you figure out what thermodynamic states are then we can resume the conversation.
I have clearly defined the parameters @mark E.the above system is sitting in a single thermal reservoir and shooting electric charge backwards and forewards,against the 2nd law. you close the switch,charge seperation results,and with it brief temperature change(current flows).you open the switch,prior equilibrium is re- established.as simple as that.you have to now show us why the charged capacitor won't leak across the vaccuum gap when the switch is open.if your not able to do this then we must conclude full reversability.Sorry, but I can ring a tank circuit all day long and the Second Law stands unperturbed. Again, if you wish to show reversibility, you need to show both: the two thermodynamic states that the system can move between, and that the system can move between those states in either direction without external input. If you labor under the mistaken idea that you can operate the switch for zero energy and extract energy each time you cycle that switch, then you have a lot of work ahead of you to try and show that your idea is correct, because it isn't.
Its a thought experiment in an ideal box @mark E but if you can't directly smash this lil example then who knows,perhaps we can take it out the box to the practical level.the capacitance can be made arbitrarily large so your switch complaint falls out immediately.as for your two states: one entropy state is the electrochemical entropy gradient.the other entropy state is the diffusion gradient.two gradients at loggerheads.wikipedia insists that all capacitors leak,why should this one be the exception @mark E.Round and round we go: You make an outrageous assertion. You fail to back your assertion. You insist that it is up to others to do your work. Sorry, dude. Do the work, or don't do the work. Your argument has no basis as long as you don't do the work.
Wikipedia doesn't back my assertion that the fully charged capacitor will leak @mark E? Wikipedia backs my assertion that the fully charged capacitor in THAT or any diagram will leak mr E.your saying that it will hold its charge permanently.your saying that when that switch is open NO leakage whatsoever will occur.I don't believe you @mark E.You claim to have an example of a fully reversible thermodynamic process. You[ve have done nothing to show that you actually do. It's pretty sad for you when you resort to fabricating statements I never made.
You've done nothing to show that I don't.something for the audience to ponder @mark E.why don't you rather admit that you can't bust this thought experiment and we can close the case.I see in other threads your too happy when thought experiments come your way.why not this one? This one only requires you to show zero leakage accross a simple capacitor.you'd think that would be chopsticks for a scientist.Round and round we go. You've done this many times now. The burden of proof for an extraordinary claim, such as your claim that you have an example of a fully reversible thermodynamic process, is upon the claimant. You have not even begun to make an argument for your claim. You have shadow boxed yourself black and blue.
Haha phil I thought there was a chance I might be wrong.I have an idea why but yes let's see if mark E is capable of destroying it with his superb knowledge.Are you ever going to present an actual argument for the thermodynamic reversibility that you claim? Or is what we have already seen all that you have to offer?
The argument @mark E is that wikipedia asserts,in a highly domineering way,that all capacitors must leak.what's preventing this one from leaking after opening switch.How in the world would a leakage current establish your claim of reversibility? Leakage would oxidize one material and reduce the other. Potential energy from the feedstock is permanently lost in such a process, making it non-reversible.
Haha phil I thought there was a chance I might be wrong.I have an idea why
Lol but it is impossible.that's what I'm saying man.it is totaly impossible for you or anyone else
No lies @ sarkeizen. It remains impossible for you..or anyone....that's what you said. See it's right there in the quote.
Because leakage current across the vaccuum would return it to its original state @mark E.neutral > charged > neutral. You seem confused,wonder why. A primary school kid can understand that diagramUnfortunately, you present yourself as though you do not.
No lies @sarkeizen.you or anybodySo Philip can't but you thought he might. You realize that "can't" and "might" are mutually exclusive.
it has been the highlight of my life to have made such a bold declaration here in on internetDull life.
knowing that nobody can or will prove me wrongIf you provide a formal argument as described by me earlier, from a textbook cite. I will prove it wrong (or prove that it's not a formal argument) inside of a day. So it seems the only reason "nobody can" is because you are hiding your argument. :D
Philip is the electrostatics expert here @sarkeizen so of course I might be wrongThen you can't say "not you not anybody" if somebody can. From where I sit Philip has only shown expertise in making grand claims.
counterarguments for my declaration are a dime a dozen,you have to physically prove that Im wrong mr sarkeizen.So your argument can be easily defeated logically. Figured as much. :D That's why you need to hide it. :D
I simply asked a simple question to you @mark E.your the one who went and made it unpresentable.it appears as though mr hardcastle was right.you won't be answering it anytime soon.You made a claim that a particular process is reversible. You have failed to even begin to offer any credible argument for that claim.
Incorrect @markE. It was wikipedia that declared that all capactors must leak.you have failed to explain why the diagrammed one won't leak on open switch mode.It's very sad that you keep throwing about straw men. Shall we return to the issue at hand? You have constructed the model, and you insist that according to wikipedia that what you have drawn is a leaky capacitor. Whether it is or it isn't: 1) a capacitor, 2) a capacitor that is initially charged, or 3) a capacitor that is initially charged and ultimately discharges via leakage, you have not shown either of the things needed to establish the thermodynamically reversible process that you claim: 1) two thermodynamic states, and 2) that the system can on its own move from either state to the other. If you claim 3) as you seem to be suggesting, then you are going to have one heck of a time showing reversibility.
I can put the whole issue to you another way @mark E.do the two metallic pieces need to be in contact to fully charge up.yes or no.Are you ever going to put forth an argument to support your claim?
You know its number 3 @mark E.I don't understand why your beating around the bush and I assure you your going to struggle to show irreversability. I've shown reversability by using wikipedias assertion against you ie, the thing spontaneously charges up as is evident in the diagrams,wikipedia says it will now spontaneously charge down when switch is opened.so either it will remain permanently charged on open switch or it won't.if it doesn't then its blatantly obviously reversable. I'm suspecting mr hardcastle will mention something about electric fields over the vaccuum gap making it irreversable but if he is going to say this then I want to know why the two pieces needed contact in the first place.OK, so it's your argument that the configuration forms a capacitor. And it is your argument that the capacitor leaks. Now: show your thermodynamic states and how the system is able to move between either state to the other.
It cannot even be defeated on logical grounds mr sarkeizenTwo interesting consequences of that statement:
Electrochemical thermodynamic downhill gradient 1)charged capacitor. Electrostatic downhill gradient 2) leak across the vaccuum @mark E. Why would the two pieces be sitting seperately neutraly charged in the first place if they were going to be stable in a seperately charged state.It is up to you to state your argument. You need to specify the states and then show that the system can move from either one to the other.
Where's the irreversability hereDon't know. I'm not an expert at converting a picture into your homework assignment (which you keep asking people to do for you).
My argument is this @mark E: why would two chunks of metal sit neutral facing each other across a vaccuum when they are supposed to be more happy charged and facing each other across a vaccuum.the stench of reversability is hanging thick over this scenario.I'm saying they are more happy in a neutral state than a charged state.unless you want to point out where I'm wrong..Are you really that daft? Once again: In order for you to show the thermodynamic reversibility that you claim then you have to: identify the two thermodynamic states that you allege are reversible, AND show how the system can freely move from the first state to the second AND the second state to the first all by itself.
I'm saying they are more happy in a neutral state than a charged state.You seem to be saying that the system seeks a favored state. If so, then it is not reversible.
My formal argument is that you won't be able to give a damning reason for nonprofitable irreversability in that spillover diagram other than declaring 2lot inviolable @sarkeizen.Again this is not a formal argument for a violation of 2LOT. It's also an argument from ignorance. :D
Its not an argument from ignorance @sarkeizenActually it is. Making the truth or falsehood of an objective fact (2LOT has or has not been violated) dependent on a persons ability to determine something. Is pretty much the definition of an argument from ignorance. Look it up on any website about the informal fallacies.
What secrets @sarkeizen?? The diagram is......not a formal argument. Too bad you're too afraid (or too stupid) to provide one...Ho hum....
As i said stupidly....Yawn. Decide if you want me to destroy a formal argument or not. If so, present one and I will. If you don't I'll assume you want to keep any formal argument you may have as far as possible from me. :)
Oh reallySure. Provide a formal argument, stemming from textbook cite.
Yawn,,I give themYou keep hiding your argument then blame me for not answering it. Ho-hum.
If contact is needed to establish a contact potential difference then I haveIf you want to be humiliated then please produce a formal argument. Starting from a textbook cite and ending in the conclusion violating 2LOT. If you want to keep your argument secret. Fine. Nobody will help you find a problem. That's your business. If you don't know how to produce a formal argument you can just ask.
profitis is 100% correctProbably not.
MarkE and Sarcastic have for dozens of posts avoided answering a simple question clearly posed by a simple diagram.Awww it's so cute you need to give me a nickname because you can't fight me man-to-man. :-) As I've said before I've never once pretended to be an electrochemist, or physicist.
Is this because they do not know the answer?I admitted that I can't answer an electrochemical question ages ago but if you are too lazy to read the thread or to stupid to think that you might be wrong...well ok that last label fits but still...:D
or is it that their sole purpose on this site is to knock and criticise?False dilemma. See, the math guy picked out your pre-preschool logic in 0.4 sec flat. Which is why if profitis can...like he led me to believe many times over produce a formal argument. I'll see where it's wrong. Same with you and your delusions about Quenco. You had to "get offended" pretty quickly in order to avoid getting beat down.
Of course if you do answer profitis with a sensible and direct response to his challenge you will no doubt prove to the forum that what you have to say is based upon some knowledge, and not simple naysaying.Naysaying is just countering someones assertion with a negative assertion. Again if you read anything instead of just making shit up. You would see that's not what I do. Instead I lay out what I need to understand the question and then I crush it into dust.
So far I must say that the lack or response, by forum members against unsupported negativity, does nothing for the reputation of this site as a forum to openly discuss energy concepts and ideas.Actually if you again, read this thread you would see that profitis is, even by a number OU believers to be a jerk who can't actually engage in a discussion. Open discussion requires that the person you are talking to is willing to provide information that you ask for. This is part of the social contract of discussion. Something you've never been known for understanding either Phillip - assuming you're not just profitis.
@profitis, as you can see from Sarkeizen's post, he openly admits he knows nothing about the subject, I suggest that you should not argue physics or chemistry with him on this threadDo you ever get anything right Phillip?
Its two seperate states @markE.one in contact.one seperate.I'm saying when seperate neutrality is favoured.when in contact charged is favoured.unless you can disprove this using textbooks.If it takes an external action to go between the states then the system is not reversible. The problem here seems to be that you do not understand what reversibility means.
profitis is 100% correct, MarkE and Sarcastic have for dozens of posts avoided answering a simple question clearly posed by a simple diagram. Is this because they do not know the answer? is it because they are not prepared to be frank? or is it that their sole purpose on this site is to knock and criticise?Mr. Hardcastle it is up to Profitis to state his argument for each of his claims. In the claim he has been conversing with me on, he has gotten to the point where he requires an external action to move between states. If as you assert that is his claim; then he has disproven his own reversibility claim before ever getting out of the gate.
profitis has shown a diagram of two dissimilar metals, these metals have a starting condition where they are uncharged, he then shows a connection and a switch.
Next he states the switch is closed, he asserts electrons will flow from the low work function metal to the higher work function metal.
Now surely MarkE who lectures everyone about almost everything could manage to accept this as a validly stated starting condition and first action.
Then profitis argues that the flow of electrons will cool one of the metals.
He then states that a thermal and charged state equilibrium will be reached.
Next he says that the switch is opened, he argues that electrons will migrate from the high work function metal to the low work function metal via the vacuum. He calls this leakage and states that wiki says all capacitors have leakage.
Lastly it is profitis' position that the whole cycle can be restarted once the metal plates are back to neutral charge.
This is a simple and clearly stated challenge by profitis, all MarkE and Sarcastic have to do is to tell profitis why it would not work, but no, instead we get endless moronic comments by them that amount to avoiding the posed problem.
MarkE and Sarcastic, your comments to date might be seen to demonstrate to the members of overunity your real motives, tell profitis what is wrong with his idea, or stop your incessant bickering and leave in shame.
I will give you a week to answer profitis, otherwise I will tell everyone the simple answer and then everyone can see what MarkE and Sarcastic truly are.
Of course if you do answer profitis with a sensible and direct response to his challenge you will no doubt prove to the forum that what you have to say is based upon some knowledge, and not simple naysaying.
So far I must say that the lack or response, by forum members against unsupported negativity, does nothing for the reputation of this site as a forum to openly discuss energy concepts and ideas.
made same demands as sarkeizen.Demands that you said you could meet at various points in time and then it turns out you were lying.
Maybe sarkeizen is mark E??Yes. All people who care about logic and reason are sarkeizen and mark E.
So your saying that if a system has a switch that perpetuum mobilum is impossible @mark E? Where did u get this ludicrous idea from? How does this interfere with thermodynamics??Here we go with yet another of your straw men.
Reversability,dear child,means to do the thing over at a profit.period.its got nothing to do with external switches,pulleys,etc. The capacitor size is variable,the switch stays the same.you are forced to show that a contact potential does not rely on contact @mark E.If you insist on living in an imaginary world with your own unique definitions: Then so be it.
Quit acting the fool @markE. All scientists agree that if ANY self-discharge of the diagrammed capacitor happens then its kaput for 2lot. You are forced to show that a contact potential does not rely on contact...Really? Then you won't have difficulty citing one reference from just one such scientist, will you?
We will see if you ever get around to actually constructing a cogent argument for your gapped bimetal "C" core representing a reversible process.Well if he doesn't. At least he'll be consistent-ly unable to construct a cogent argument. :D
I disagree @sarkeizen.this thread is history in the making.You live in a dull world.
phillip hardcastle will fill us in.Look if you want to keep your argument a secret. I get it. Less risk to your ego not to mention it would put an end to your trolling.
Mr sarkeizen it boils down toDude. You came in here boasting about how you know so much about this branch of science but you don't know:
And I might not even be satisfied with phil's explanation mr sarkeizenIf you say so.
profitis, why do you continue to argue with Sarkeizen? he openly admitted that he knows nothing about the subject, so I suggest you focus on the issues that MarkE is prepared to debate if you are going to progress your thought experiment.Philip why do you insist on personifying the word "blowhard"? I tend to think that such posts are done for my benefit as there can be no cost to profitis in posting to me. He is an advanced troll and perfectly capable of trolling many people at once. So the likely case is I'm getting to you. Thanks for sharing that.
MarkE is having such difficulty despatching it tells me he is not an expert in either electrochemistry, physics or thermionicsHowever, according to you he is right and profitis is wrong. Which makes profitis pretty stupid.
need to stop putting forward objections of formality of argumentThat's me, not marke. You don't even know what I'm talking about when I say these things so perhaps you should hush up.
I'll give you all until the end of the week to resolve the debate, otherwise you will all be humiliated by having to be told the really simple reasons that the arrangement cannot violate 2LOT.I've actually told Profitis several reasons as to why. However profitis wants me to guess a hidden argument and refute it. That's different than being told why something can not work. So if there is a simple reason you will have proven two of my points:
Ive got a sharp eye for hidden entropy statesAccording to Philip you don't. You missed something infantile and trivial so trivial that Philip who is not a field expert claims to sees it and he's also pretty bad at math and logic. So your argument doesn't hold any water.
@mark E.imaginary world? So tell us then,please enlighten us scientists: what thehell is going to happen IF any self-discharge of that capacitor takes place.it seems you are claiming that it shall remain permanently chargedup on open switch,correct?Have you completely abandoned any attempt to produce an actual argument for your scenario being thermodynamically reversible?
profitis, why do you continue to argue with Sarkeizen? he openly admitted that he knows nothing about the subject, so I suggest you focus on the issues that MarkE is prepared to debate if you are going to progress your thought experiment.Mr. Hardcastle, you can take all the pot shots that you like, but I will not second guess an argument profitis has yet to offer. Should he ever construct an argument then I will deal with it. At this juncture, profitis presents himself as having serious difficulty comprehending what reversibility means that he claims exists in his example.
MarkE has tried to obscure the debate by putting forward an argument that energy is expended by the operation of your imagined switch, you have argued that as the plates can be any size, the energy you claim they might harvest would exceed the fixed amount of energy to operate the said switch, your statement is valid but irrelevant, I will state here with absolute certainty that MarkE is barking up the wrong tree if he thinks the switch is the issue.
As to your statement that you might not agree with my explanation, that is rather provocative, all I can say is this thought experiment is rather trivial, that MarkE is having such difficulty despatching it tells me he is not an expert in either electrochemistry, physics or thermionics, I do believe MarkE is generally a person of some genuine scientific training and so he should be able resolve this thought experiment from first principles, but he will need to stop putting forward objections of formality of argument, or rusty and hard to operate switches.
I'll give you all until the end of the week to resolve the debate, otherwise you will all be humiliated by having to be told the really simple reasons that the arrangement cannot violate 2LOT.
Good luck.
I'm taking my own stand on this issue @mark E.if phills explanation annihilates my case then so be it but you've done nothing but delay delay instead of talking straight TO me but ok let me put it to you this way: may I ask you a question @mark E??Again, you just did. There is nothing I can do to prevent you from asking questions. Just as there is nothing that I can do that will compel you to actually express a cogent argument that supports your extraordinary claims.
yes sarkeizen doesn't seem to have any appreciation of scientific detailI don't know how long it's been since Philip wrote a paper and you probably haven't (unless you're Philip). So for you it's understandable that you can't put together an argument with any useful degree of formalism but Philip it is less so. However what I and others have asked for is exactly what gets put in papers - the ones that get published anyway.
@sarkeizen actually phil interrogated me pretty hecticly on the karpen subjectHectic just means busy or fast. Doesn't mean "well". I read until I got bored Philip's questions were softballs. Yawn.
Ok @mark E.I'm the kid in your classroom now and I'm going to ask you this question sir: will two different neutral metals sitting under vaccuum close to each other but NOT touching remain permanently neutral sir.(the temperature is uniform throughout and well below the thermionic emission temperature of both samples)What is there to drive them to some other state?
Mr sarkeizen you wanted formality so ask me formal questions.go on,shoot..Can you provide a formal argument starting from a textbook cite which ends in a 2LOT violation?
I'm too lazy to cite(heck of an effort) but you can google,research and chekup on what I'm gona say ok @sarkeizen? Fair enuf? I won't tell you anything informal,promiseDefine "informal".
Informal meaning something that is not agree-able by all scientists.That's not what I'm talking about.
That's what I'd also like to know @markE. Is there any single thing driving them to another state.?? what do you think?LOL. Dude, you are the one who makes the claim of a reversible process. That means it is up to you to identify the states and show that the system freely moves from one to the other by itself. If you won't declare the states you cannot show reversibility. If you cannot show free movement by the system between the states in either direction should you ever identify them, then you cannot show reversibility.
It hangs on the answer to my question @mark E.now do you know the answer or not.LOL. No dude, your ability or inability to support your claims rests entirely with you as it always has. So far you have not supported them.
So you can't answer my question then teacher mark E.great.this doesn't help.You should know by now that I will not answer the question until you present an argument for your claim that the gapped "C" core of dissimlar metals gives rise to a thermodynamically reversible process. You are free to propose any reason you like as to why I won't play your game the way you might like. If you are taking the position that I must teach you something in order for you to articulate an argument, then you are tacitly admitting that you do not have an argument to offer. As we have been going round and round without your presenting an argument for your claims, it certainly looks to me like you never had one.
What do you mean @sarkeizenI've defined "formal argument" about ten times for you in this thread. Thanks for being an asshole yet again.
Uh-uh @mark E. It doesn't work like that.I asked you if I could ask you a question.you said yes.I asked you a question.I got no answer.we are now stuck until somebody can answer my question.I just want to know if the two pieces-o-metal are going to sit there in the vaccuum and stay neutral when seperated.if they are then we have a problem.LOL. It seems you will try to make up any excuse for the fact that you have so far failed to support your extraordinary claim with any kind of logical argument. If as you seem to be saying, that you need me or anyone else to tutor you in order for you to form your argument, then you never had one, and your extraordinary claim remains false on its face.
Even if they only partially chargeup spontaneously over the gap we have a problem.You can at any time attempt to compose an argument. It seems that you have as much difficulty stating an argument as you do publishing references that you claim are readily available.
@mark E. IF the two seperate metal pieces are stable neutral or even partially charged over time it means that THAT is their lowest entropy state.they will want to go straight back to that state after a single contact charge cycle in violation of the 2nd law thermodynamics.so you or phil have no choice but to show that the seperate pieces will spontaneously charge fully over the openwide vaccuum gap.LOL, are yu certain that is the hypothesis you want to apply to your claim? If it is, then you are arguing against your own claim.
Formal: atomic hydrogen is stable on platinum.unstable on the substrate.logical: atomic hydrogen rapidly recombines into floating H2 gas on the substrate.argument:H2 gas is then free to recycle straight back to the platinum. Perfect cycle @sarkeizen.This isn't what I'm talking about and I asked you to provide a cite.
That's what I'm talking aboutSo? Only morons would be interested.
and I told you I'm too lazy to cite.Sorry, not interested. Your desire to take a task that would be many, many, many times easier for you and foist it on me. Does not sound like someone who is interested in making their point. It's characteristic of someone who doesn't know what they are talking about and possibly trying to pull a fast one.
Nope.only replicators would be interested.If you mean typical moron on OU who thinks they "just need to change one thing to violate 2LOT". Then you're right. Since I'm not a moron, I'm still not interested. Keep lying and hiding. It's all you do well.
That's the stand that I'm taking yes @mark E and no I'm not arguing against my own claim.if the two pieces are neutraly or partially neutraly seperately stable then that is their lowest entropy state..when seperate.Dude: So according to your statements that there is a lowest state, and the system left alone drives towards that state? Is that what you are saying? If it is then you are saying that system is not reversible as you have claimed.
Replicators @sarkeizenMorons...and this is yet another digression because your knowledge of subject is so incredibly bad that you can't easily cite to support an argument. Yawn. There are no textbooks which support your ideas. Fess up. Go home. Get a life. :D
Mark E the electrons are free to randomly thermaly shoot across the vaccuum over time.if the system is stable neutral and seperate:that is the systems lowest entropy state when seperate.if the system is fully charged when contacted then that is the lowest entropy state when in contact.Are you claiming that the system spontaneously moves the contacts together and pulls them apart? If not then you have declared two different situations, neither of which you have shown are reversible.
I've given my formal argumentNope. You have provided no set of steps and no validation that each step is inescapably true. So, let me know when you get around to those. After which you still need a textbook cite. If you're interested in making your point. If not. Well, why would anyone be interested in someone pretending they're doing science but won't comply with one of the easiest and simplest (for the person making the claim) requirements.
No the switch moves them together or apart @mark E.the switch is miniscule in size compared to the two pieces who are arbitrarily large in capacitance.the system is clearly reversableI think you need to avail yourself to a primer in thermodynamics. The system is not moving the switch by itself. Therefore the system cannot even reach one condition from the other by itself. Therefore the system is not reversible between the conditions. QED.
@sarkeizen.don't lie I have provided a completely formalIf you had then you could show a formal validation - demonstrate that there is absolutely no possibility but for each step to force the next one. However you have provided no proof of that. Not even a single sentence. So by definition, you have not provided a formal argument.
It seems phil was right markE.you have extremely limited knowledge on thermodynamics.You are free to form any opinion of me that you like. In the meantime you have destroyed your own claim.
@sarkeizen.my argument doesn't necessitate annihilation of kelvins rule?really? Point out Where..LOL, there you go again, insisting that others produce your argument for you.
@sarkeizen.my argument doesn't necessitate annihilation of kelvins rule?really? Point out Where..Your argument has not been presented in that form. Hence it is not formal. QED.
@mark E. Mr sarkeizen has to do the work to disprove me now because I used HIS bible against him.he has to point out formaly scientificaly where my argument falls shortDude. Where is this imaginary formal argument of yours? This is just back to a month or so ago where you also claimed that you had a formal argument. Yawn.
Incorrect @mark E.I have not destroyed my own argument(not claim) over contact potentials.infact,you've destroyed your defense.phil and I predicted that you would fallback onto the switch issue as a last desperate line of defence,gues what,you did (-:LOL. See if you can find anyone to agree with you concerning your argument. Maybe you wish to invoke a unique interpretation of thermodynamically reversible.
@mark E. Mr sarkeizen has to do the work to disprove me now because I used HIS bible against him.he has to point out formaly scientificaly where my argument falls short.he has to attack me directly on the issue of cyclic spillover.if he fails to do this then he cannot present a solid defence case on which to stand.If you really believe that, then you do not understand proofs.
There it is @sarkeizen..a few of my posts backI see nothing that qualifies as a formal argument. Can you demonstrate that it's a formal argument? (Hint: If you can't it's not a formal argument). Again you should stop lying. When someone asks you for something, it is lying to claim that you've done it and you haven't.
its false if cited?You need a cite for any formal argument to be true. It might be different if say I was a field expert but I'm not. :D
@sarkeizen: you don't have knowledge in the field and your telling me that my statement is informal?I am something of an expert in the field of proofs and formal arguments. Enough to know this is probably smokescreen to disguise that you don't know what I'm talking about. So here's a hint. Outline your argument in a series of steps like so:
Oh so your going to kick me in the nuts only when I provide the argument in the way that you want me to provide the argument mr sarkeizen?What I described for you in my last post *is* a formal argument. You said you could/had provided one. Do you now realize that you haven't/can't?
but you cant when I provide an 'informal' one.An "informal argument" is indistinguishable from someone hiding information required to make a judgement. I've already been completely honest with what I can do whereas you've been generally dishonest. :D
Oh so you are only going to kick me in the nuts when I provide a 'formal' argument
very strange :DWhat's strange is asking someone over thirty-times for something and after having them lie, squirm and weasel about it. Then act surprised when you want exactly what you asked for and meant exactly what you said. Kind of makes you something of a sociopath. :D
Hiding information?If you can't write it as a formal argument then you are hiding information by definition. It might be information that you consider obvious but again, I'm not a field expert and you claim to be so you have no excuse. If you can't write a formal argument then you fail my criteria.
Oh so your not a field expert but you want to tell me what a formal argument is going to look like so that you can annihilate my expertise mr sarkeizen. Sooo.. if your not a field expert how are you going to annihilate an argument shaped into the way that you want it to be shaped @sarkeizen..I hope you are enjoying yourself, because you are making quite the fool of yourself. It would be a pity if you weren't at least enjoying it.
Oh so your not a field expert but you want to tell me what a formal argument is going to look likeBecause formal argument, logic and proofs are a different field. Even you should agree that this is true since you obviously didn't know what a formal argument at first. Remember when you lied and said you made one? :D
so that you can annihilate my expertise mr sarkeizen. Sooo.. if your not a field expert how are you going to annihilate an argument shaped into the way that you want it to be shaped @sarkeizen..Simple. A formal argument depends on exactly two things. That the premises are true and that each step is necessarily true if the prior one is. As promised earlier your argument will fail either because some step is false or that the premises are untrue or not necessarily true or that the steps are not forced. I don't need to be a field expert to show those things.
Where's your sense of humour fled to @mark E? No more lolz? Mr sarkeizen demands an formated argument that fits into his shooting field.I can try to format an argument in support of the second law of thermodynamics in the way that he wants it and he can still shoot me down,on his terms.I'm not stupidHow you present yourself is your choice. Sarkeizen hasn't demanded anything. He has said he will consider an argument if you actually come up with one. He has also said that he expects that he will tear any argument you might come up with apart. So long as you don't present an argument, we can only speculate about that.
And if madebymonkeys succeeds in powering his ipod permanently with the above cell what are you going to then say @sarkeizen.Someone is going to have to wait a long time to test for "permanently".
And if madebymonkeys succeeds in powering his ipod permanentlyAs always this is not a test that can be performed.
with the above cell what are you going to then say @sarkeizen.However if there's a claim that some set of activities represents a 2LOT violation. Then it's simply a mater of something you and Philip suck at, math. What's more likely than this actually being a 2LOT violation? Just about everything. Hence there is an awful long list of things to test before before we decide there's a 2LOT violation.
Your supposed to be a scientist @ markeiz.. ugghh mark E.how can you make a daft statement like this: 'somebody is going to have to wait a long time to chek for permanentcy'.how long is a nickel-hydrogen battery supposed to last when short-circuited..2hours, 3? You can short a karpen-style for 6 weeks and ping..springs straight back up to original voltage and power.LOL:
per·ma·nent
ˈpərmənənt/
adjective
adjective: permanent
1.
lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely.
Yawwwn @sarkeizen.just build the thing and see for yourself.its power density is many many times that of karpens original.Sorry, compulsive liars on websites are not sufficient reason to build anything. :D :D :D Only a moron would consider your request a good idea.
Yeah indefinitely means a little bit longer than 2hours @markE.try 60years.60 years is better than 2 years, but hardly qualifies as permanent. Something that is permanent lasts an indefinite period of time. Mere mortals are confined to evaluating using finite measures.
No only someone who cannot specificly point out the irreversability of hydrogen spillover will build the cellLet's review:
you still haven't explained to us how your going to judge an argument formatted your way with little or no knowledge in the field.I did, you didn't read or didn't understand it. All formal arguments can be evaluated or demonstrated to be not formal. Which is all I said I would do.
You're entitled to your opinionMy opinion just happens to be supported by the numbers and reason.
@sarkeizen.others believe in the old english saying,'the proof is in the pudding'.Whatever that saying is supposed to mean it probably does not mean that: Liars are good sources of information. Insufficiently explained arguments are persuasive and existing evidence should lose it's weight in the light of contrary claims. In other words since you can not build everything some uneducated moron suggests on the internet. You must use your brain to decide what to build and what not to build. You have not met even a modicum of evidence. Hence you are either wrong to suggest I build something or you are not using your brain.
The bottom line is that you cannot disprove MY argumentOf course I can. You have simply refused to present it in a way that is useful to me. I have told you exactly what I wanted for months and you have refused and lied and played games. It's pretty stupid to build something solely on a hidden argument, no authoratitive evidence and the testimony of liars. Perhaps building anything presented by any liar with any undisclosed theory that is against the existing body of work is, to you a good idea.
It'l last long enough to profit from it @mark E,that's our only concern.the lab that hires my ass will soar ahead of all the others in research.If you think that what you've been posting here would help with a research position job search, I think you are badly mistaken. I do not believe that your posts represent a skilled and knowledgeable person who articulates persuasive arguments. One of the running difficulties is that you seem very reluctant to actually formulate and express an argument.
You're entitled to your opinion @sarkeizen.others believe in the old english saying,'the proof is in the pudding'. The bottom line is that you cannot disprove MY argument for reversability if you build the cell to specification or even in theory.You keep holding out an empty bowl.
If you think that what you've been posting here would help with a research position job search, I think you are badly mistaken. I do not believe that your posts represent a skilled and knowledgeable person who articulates persuasive arguments. One of the running difficulties is that you seem very reluctant to actually formulate and express an argument.Seriously. Could you imagine this interview?
Seriously. Could you imagine this interview?That's about it. My version goes like this:
Me: So can you tell us why you should hire you?
Profitis: Because I have an idea that will make you the richest people on earth!!!!!
Me: That's a very...uh...interesting claim. Perhaps you can tell us how you would do that?
Profitis: No.
Me: Yes well. You realize that would make it hard to give you a position you understand?
Profits: No. Tell you what if you can disprove my idea then I'll walk out of this interview.
Me: Ok, what's your argument.
Profitis: Not telling.
Me: <pulls the lever which opens the trap door>
Lol.actually, that's quite a scary interview @mark E.if the guy said to me,'you can't prove me wrong!' I would reply,'oh yeah?' and give him the benefit of the doubt, just incase.Could that attitude be related to the fact that you claim a marvelous discovery on the one hand, and an unfulfilled desire for new employment in the other?
Maybe @mark E,however,if you play the lottery you stand about one in 40million chances of winning.if a random stranger comes to you and tells you he's going to build you the finest everlasting battery you ever saw,its a coin toss that he's going to do it.either he is or he isn't.LOL, you had best take a refresher course in probability and statistics.
Why @ mark E.LOL, for the same reason that if Floyd Mayweather entered the ring with Paul Rubens, there is no doubt that Mr. Mayweather would be the victor.
Maybe @mark E,however,if you play the lottery you stand about one in 40million chances of winning.if a random stranger comes to you and tells you he's going to build you the finest everlasting battery you ever saw,its a coin toss that he's going to do it.either he is or he isn't.See here's where I think we're seeing profitis's "true stupidity" it would take a smart person significant amount of effort to try to be this dumb.
No @sarkeizen.its a one in two chance that I will build for you the same thing that karpen built for you,only more powerful.You appear to be stating that by virtue of having two outcome states (success or failure) this represents a probability of 1 in 2. If so, this is probably the single most mathematically ignorant statement I've seen on OU....and as you can imagine that's up against some pretty stiff competition.
By profitis's """""logic""""" the lottery is a coin flip. Either you win or you don't.
You know what minnie I think your right.nobody is going to give me a chance unless I do this myself.but at least nobody can dare claim they was the first to snuggle karpens pile neatly into today's textbooks.that accomplishment was mine.
I would have to agree with profitis and not with your flawed logic. By playing half of the combinations, then the lottery is a coin flip. In addition to this, there has been many people when the lottery multiple times. Below is a snapshot of a google search on "multiple lotto winners (https://www.google.com/search?num=50&q=multiple+lotto+winner&oq=multiple+lotto+winner&gs_l=serp.3...498553.503240.0.503645.21.14.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c.1.47.serp..21.0.0.RqDVFxQO8f8)". There are many techniques and methods which would improve your odds of winning the lotto by significantly more than 50% while playing much less than half of the combinations. Randomness is the ultimate order in this universe. Since you love Miles Mathis so much, then maybe you can learn something by reading his paper on entropy (http://milesmathis.com/ent.html).
Gravock
Well the chances are still a heck of a lot better than a lottery mr sarkeizenYou have provided no evidence to justify that claim.
@sarkeizen.your an idiot.why? Because its simply a matter of karpens pile improved.case closed.You first said it was a 50% chance, apparently by virtue of the fact that you don't know that a two-outcome situation does not imply a 50% probability.
You don't understand @madebymonkeys.I've already proven it to myself with small samples here in my homelab.if the small works then the big will work.the problem is cash injection. I guess I have no choice but to go large first before anyones going to take note.is your prize offer still up for grabs @madebymonkeys.if I power an ipod with a thing more-or-less the same size as an ipod will you give prize?? Or was you just pulling my leg.
Page 105 @madebymonkeys.you agreed to a prize total of 150000 pounds sterling.I'm going to have to show something impressive and commercially viable here.something useful.
Agreed.Since there's no chance of profitis failing this would clearly be a good deal for him. Also if he accepts the bet he'll be at least be ahead of that welcher Philip.
So, 1W continuous from a device the size of an iPod. Not sure we specified the iPod type, let's say an iPod Nano (PH could, apparently squeak many amps from a few mm square....in theory!).
You would need to send details of the construction and a prototype so I know there is no battery inside.....and show it working!
.......can you suggest a deadline? I would suggest it coincide with the earth shattering Hardcastle news in August (2014). If you can't deliver in this month (or year) then you send me GBP5k. Hey, it's 50:50 right, you either win 150k or lose 5k - not a bad coin toss!
A normal zinc battery the size of an ipod produces a watt @madebymonkeys there's no way a karpen of the same size can give a watt.a super- karpen pile will be between 0.5-1watt in a 0.5-1liter size and all piles give power in bursts depending on the power draw.I'm thinking of making this thing to power something useful that doesn't require too much power, like a tv remote.what do you think of an cheap electronic component that can be permanently integrated into the circuitry of all tv remotes @madebymonkeys?? No more batteries required for any tv remote in the world,ever again?? Is that worth your prize? I will video the karpen- component being shortcircuited for 30 mins,then shoved into the tv remote and spontaneously chargeup and work like new.whatdoyathink?the component will be impossible to permanently flatten or self-discharge during non -use
Or a kitchen clock @madebymonkeys.no more batteries required for the kitchen clock anymore round the world with this filthy-cheap component.
As a bonus,if u hand over the prize for the tv remote,you get to own half the patent rights of that component @madebymonkeys,whatdoyathink?(There's no patent on it yet)
shuffle type ipods with a tiny lcd display or no display at allOnly the shuffle has no lcd, even the nano has all sorts of bells and whistles which would take you over the 40mw range...and how big is this? If the 1W model is 1L?
There are no patents that I'm aware of in existence other than the karpen original @madebymonkeys.claiming priority won't be a problem because the playing field is quite huge.the winners will be high power smallish size at low cost, high power smallish size at high cost but big demand,low power smallish size at low cost but big demand. The ipods I'm talking about are the shuffle type ipods with a tiny lcd display or no display at all in other words the power all goes into the earphones.those ones require power in the 20-50 milliwatt range so its kind of the same thing as powering a pocket radio. If I can get it to power such ipods or radios CONTINOUSLY would that be ok? I'l squish it into a reasonable size and reasonable cost.radios and ipods are pleasure based items that people(especially women) generaly don't want to crankup with a dynamo or shove in sunlight I would think.Prior art includes all art previously practiced including anything that is described in a prior publication.
If I could get hold of a tinselkoala(electrogenius) by my side it would be easy to adapt the radio or ipod electronics TO the battery at maximum efficiency. Only a few milliwatts are really needed for a good sound system.this type of battery would best be directly sold as an electronic component,like a transformer or capacitor with varying output values on its label.that would give scope for radio or ipod,clock or watch,remotes,switches etc etc manufacturers to adapt to the battery.
If that were strictly true then there would be no more patents allowed on a zinc-carbon @mark E.
If that were strictly true then there would be no more patents allowed on a zinc-carbon @mark E.It is absolutely and positively strictly true: Prior art includes all prior publications. Prior art is unpatentable.
There's a plethora of pocket digital sound systems without displays and extra's @sarkeizen.You decided to brag for months about powering an iPod and then only one that was really, really small? People usually do this research up front instead of looking like a moron later.
A milliwatt range superkarpen will be about a 30-50ml size.A 40mw (the range you said) is 50ml? Isn't that 10x the size of the shuffle? You realize the size of the shuffle right? You realize that size is it's ONLY SELLING POINT.
the problem is that karpens give power in bursts if power is drawn all-at-onceThen shorting is probably a stupid test.
What do you mean by BOM @madebymonkeys you mean the 1liter? do you know how much power goes to waste in such ipods? Maybe 70percent I would say,for example let's start with the earphones,if we replace coil phones with the finest funkiest sounding piezo phones we drop the requirements straight into the micro-watt range!! The amp would only need to boost to around 1 milliwatt! Adapting the ipod to the battery is where the money is my friend.BOM = Bill Of Materials.
trolls
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
..
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Cost of the radio/ipod battery will be roughly the same or slightly less than a lithium @madebymonkeys.I can tell you one thing for certain,electronics labs will definitely adapt the pleasure device to the cell if it gets to market for maximum reduction in battery size while retaining cool sound vibes.so must I do do this then @madebymonkeys. 150000 pounds sterling for a demo of a everlasting milliwatt range ipod,radio or digital thingy from off the shelves using a 30-50ml bat.
Sorry phill.can we take the discussion to the karpen thread please @madebymonkeys? (-:
@sarkeizen I don't think anyone is going to mind carrying around a 50mlWelcome to the world of "market differentiation". There are exactly two reasons to buy a shuffle over the other ipods. It's the smallest and cheapest. Adding your battery doesn't make it the cheapest anymore and adding your battery doesn't make it the smallest anymore.
to listen to their favourite numbers all day and night.Battery life of a touch playing music has been benchmarked at 24 hrs. Battery life of a shuffle is at least 8 hours to 15 hours. The vast majority of people return to a place where they can plug into something at night. The people interested will be tiny. Which makes your product more expensive. Not to mention it's a declining market (if you checked, but you didn't). Almost everyone already owns something that is equivalent to an ipod in function. A cell phone.
it will be the cool thing to have and brag to ones friends about I reckon.If you're stupid. Which you are.
I'm not sure @madebymonkeys but I must respect him.my reply is there on the karpen thread.Yawn, Philip needs his diaper changed. It will be interesting if Philip gets warned or moderated on the thread he started.
This thread was started by me to discuss Sebithenco and quencoThere there. If you recall you created this thread to spread PROPAGANDA about your fantasy power machines. You've never really DISCUSSED them except with ridiculous rules that allow you an easy out from the conversation.
Yes cellfones have just about made ipods obsolete @sarkeizen which is why I want to focus on remotes,watches,clocks.these are all very much here to stay(nice deliberate misspelling of "phone" why you continue to affect moron grammar and spelling that nobody buys is bizarre)
I'll give you all until the end of the week to resolve the debate, otherwise you will all be humiliated by having to be told the really simple reasons that the arrangement cannot violate 2LOT.Did I miss this momentous event? Or has this been delayed too...
Watts, is this possible, and if so what would you need to make an ultra Karpen cell? or should you keep that quiet and patent something first?Over in another thread Philip seems to believe Profits....
So what's going to happen on August 20th?Wrong thread, this is for Karpen Piles.
So what's going to happen on August 20th?
That is all I am going to say now on that subject.Until it comes time to make excuses and move goalposts.
I will make an announcement about heat to power converter technology, and provide links to the website where people can read the full story behind the work that is, and has been going on.
That is all I am going to say now on that subject.
It's less than 2 months until the big reveal, so I guess the work on the technology is finished and now you're working on the website and promotion exclusively?
Mr. Hardcastle has not said what it is that he intends to announce. It could be anything from he has a new idea to he has developed and tested the idea to one extent or another.Piecing together from prior posts of his he says it's a "Heat to electricity" device and that it is 2LOT violating.
I don't see seiko and co complaining about loss of buisnessBecause seiko is actually a group of companies which sells a lot of things.
@sarkeizen so you may have overlooked something.Nope. In the 16-34 age group only ~30% even own a watch. ~60% of americans use their phone as their primary way of telling the time. Keep making up your market research as you make up your physics.
as I've said many times before,a combination of textbooksIn your own words there is nothing in textbooks from which you can make a formal argument to a 2LOT violation from.
and lack of reason for irreversabilityHow is this different from saying "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence"?
I'm not sure @madebymonkeys but I must respect him.my reply is there on the karpen thread.
and you forgot the watch stats of china? There's money in gizmo watches, period mr sarkeizen.Median price for wholesale watch out of China is ~$5.00/pc. With about 90% under $10. So, again not much money there.
something straight out the textbooks sticks out like a sore thumbThe facts still remain.
Any ideas how my post asking PH to 'grow up' disappeared?This one? http://www.overunity.com/12207/quentron-com/msg407704/#msg407704
The post was made after PH's long posts about 'trolls'.
This one? http://www.overunity.com/12207/quentron-com/msg407704/#msg407704
I'm almost certain that profitis and Philip are giving each other handjobs in the Karpen thread...
Another good reason not to go there.
you start a thread whining about being called a nameAbout gravityblock being racist you mean? My post was about if that behavior is considered acceptable by the admins here.
nazi's are not a race.No they're not. Are you saying that you don't understand how nazi's are a racially sensitive issue?
now you are sexually harrassing members and that is okay?My use of "giving each other handjobs" isn't about someone's sexuality anymore than the idiom "intellectual masturbation" is. The point is that Philip, who was supposed to expose profitis as a fraud but instead has been spending his time pretty much indulging profitis's nonsense. Not to mention the term "sexual harassment" is usually used in the context of labor law. This isn't Philips workplace and even if it was I'm not his co-worker.
head shakeThat's what I did when you took two serious (and often debilitating) diseases and made light of them. So you could in turn harass me.
About gravityblock being racist you mean? My post was about if that behavior is considered acceptable by the admins here.
I think the Karpen cell enigma is the best thing on this site (not counting my own work lol) and it is more likely than not something that keen replicators can work on.This from essentially a few softball questions which didn't do much more than [strike]felate[/strike]stroke profits's ego.
If you guys can produce such a thing that you can prove is a 2LOT violation, then I can provide all the funding you would need to commercialise it, even though I am currently working (as profitis knows) to commercialise a competing technology.Yawn again Philip doesn't sound much like someone who knows what he's talking about. Unless there's some pretty significant limitation to Quenconium...or whatever the Quenco is called now....there is no room for a competing technology. Especially one like profitis's which in his own words is only suitable for....almost nothing. A single 2LOT violating device of reasonable robustness and scalability pretty much destroys the market for any others.
The characters here keep getting weirder....which makes me wonder if this entire site is constructed primarily from trolls.This from essentially a few softball questions which didn't do much more than [strike]felate[/strike]stroke profits's ego.Yawn again Philip doesn't sound much like someone who knows what he's talking about. Unless there's some pretty significant limitation to Quenconium...or whatever the Quenco is called now....there is no room for a competing technology. Especially one like profitis's which in his own words is only suitable for....almost nothing. A single 2LOT violating device of reasonable robustness and scalability pretty much destroys the market for any others.Mr. Hardcastle has not promised to do anything more than make an announcement in August. The bar for keeping his word is pretty low.
Ah well....I await Philips failure in August.
Mr. Hardcastle has not promised to do anything more than make an announcement in August. The bar for keeping his word is pretty low.
I will post here a link where members can obtain such a device from a distributor, but it will not be before August 20th 2014 for legal reasons.
I cannot for strict confidentiality reasons divulge anything on the topics of what is to be released in August, so I will use the British Royal position of making no comment, but with a slightly cheeky smile.Again a reasonable reading of "what is to be released" would imply a product, not an announcement of a product. From other things that I've already quoted the product in question would be 2LOT violating.
@pomodoro it is powered by HYDROGEN SPILLOVER straight from the textbooks my friend.please google.Because profitis won't....
@sarkeizen google is saturated with hydrogen spilloverNope. At least nothing which directly states or can formally be connected to a battery that can run an ipod indefinitely. If you can supply one which directly states that or a formal argument which goes from one such statement to that statement of yours then I would be convinced.
Nor is there any internet info that can show that such spillover is irreversable @sarkeizenSo absence of evidence is always evidence of absence? Thanks for giving me a win. :D
I guess you didn't see the word spontaneous there @mark ELOL, you don't even give yourself an out. Everything that you have described so far is thermodynamically irreversible. Some things that you have described are electrochemically reversible.
Really @mark E? Then tell us how oxygen spillover from eg. Pt onto Au is thermodynamicly irreversible.the floor is yours...Spill over. The process consumes the feed stock. Any additional questions?
Well @mark E,there's just one small problem buddy.Its gas that spills over. nothing to prevent float-back when disengaged.how are you going to show feedstock runs out now.No dude when the gas is consumed it is consumed. Or do you think electrochemical reactions don't ... wait for it ... react?
Lol im an electrochemist @mark E. You've obviously never heard of a redox shuttle before. Let me ask you this question: what causes random gas molecules to spill down a slide in straight orderly fashion in the first place.where does the energy come from to do this @mark EThen it comes as no surprise that you have been trying to find a new employer. How much longer will your current employer put up with you?
How much longer will your current employer put up with you?I always thought profitis's begging for a job was because he was unemployed. Seems like he would be.
So great teacher markeiz..tsss..markE: What reagent is used up or burned up in the galvanic spillover cycle. Where is our fuel,please locate it for us mr genius.ps there is no violation of the first law thermo.LOL, you claim that you get energy out of something without changing that something, and you think that is not tantamount to a claim that violates the First Law? Please stop! My sides hurt.
@mark E. You have to show that catalyst hydrogen or oxygen spillover will not power a battery forever otherwise we cannot bring ourselves to believe you.LOL, every time I have noticed you make an outrageous claim I've watched you eventuallyretreat behind a claim that someone else bears the burden of proving the ordinary status quo. No buddy, they don't. The burden of proof falls upon the person making the extraordinary claim.You make the silly claims of eternal power sources. If you have actual evidence that supports your claims then you could present that evidence at anytime. ... All anyone gets from you are crickets. We have been over many times what you need to show to support claims of a thermodynamically reversible process. Months later, your lips keep moving but no data has been forthcoming.
Ja but you still have to show us that textbook catalytic spillover isn't an eternal unchanging power source at least on paper @mark E.we are highly suspicious after the latest romanian museum measurements.You can allude to some device violating first principles all you want. You can also howl at the moon.
Ja but you still have to show us that textbook catalytic spillover isn't an eternal unchanging power source at least on paperOnly if absence of evidence necessitates evidence of absence. Since it doesn't, you are kind of left with no argument.
@mark E.we are highly stupid after the latest romanian museum measurements.Yes. Yes you are.
Ja but its a textbook principal @sarkeizen.Only if you can show me a textbook which states it's 2lot violating or can be formally reasoned to that point. Otherwise it's only your preferred delusion that it is a textbook principle. If you could have done any of that you would have won this argument months ago. :D :D :D Yawn.
Ja but we the audience are highly stupid after the latest romanian measurementsYes. Yes you are.
@sarkeizen.we want you to show us how textbook catalyst spillover obeys 2lot that's all.Sure. Once you demonstrate that textbooks make any kind of 2lot violating claim. Otherwise you're asking me to talk about a "textbook 2Lot violation" without showing me which textbooks and where make this claim.
Ja but the textbooks provided catalyst spilloverSo you say. You've provided nothing. So again you're hiding your argument. You want me to refute something that you won't provide.
@sarkeizen.you may use any specific example of catalyst spilloverDon' t have any examples.
I and nobody else just want you to show how catalyst gaseous spillover obeys the rules and regulations of 2lot mr sarkeizen.you may use any example of catalytic spillover that you fancy.So you've given up on your premise that the textbooks themselves make your point? Well, again. Thanks for the win. :D
My point is that the textbooks definitely do not preventWait. That's a pretty significant change from your original argument. Which was that "textbooks state or provide the clear unarguable basis for a 2lot violation".
@profitis, you promised me you would not continue your discussions with Sarcastic on this thread, but now I see that MarkE has joined in on posting on this thread about Karpen, and you engage with him and Sarcastic.Glad to see that I'm getting to you enough that you need to give me a nickname. :D :D :D
I am now declaring to this forum that I am no longer prepared to post here.Well at least that gets you off the hook for your big non-announcement in August. Almost the same way that getting all flustered with me saved you from being beaten in an argument with me. Looks like you have that whole running away bit down to a science. :D
They do provide all the necessary tools for a 2lot violation mr sarkeizen,What does that mean? Does it mean that an unarguable point can be made simply from textbooks and logic? If not, then again you could have told me I won this argument a while back.
I'm going to refrain from blowing the anti-2lot horn from now on and be strictly going by the textbook.In other words...textbooks don't support 2lot violation. Thanks again for the win profitis.
@sarkeizen.gona make your dreams come true,by the textbook.Yawn...you are (like Philip) pretty much at 100% fail...or is that what you mean?
Ja but the textbooks provided catalyst spillover.we just want you to show how it obeys 2lot in general or specificly @sarkeizen.LOL! Does the entropy not increase with time? Does not a chemical reaction proceed net in one direction: feed stock to result?
They do provide all the necessary tools for a 2lot violation mr sarkeizen,by clearing the path to fullscale reversibility.there is no law save 2lot that prevents this.yet theres a hundred laws for this.You have killed your own argument.
LOL! Does the entropy not increase with time?
You are completely out of context.
LOL, you commit the converse fallacy: A is a member of B, therefore anything that is a member of B is therefore A. Do whatever you can to put negative temperatures in the context of Profitis' electrochemical process.
Troll, troll, troll down the stream you go. "the entropy", as in the entropy in his electrochemical reaction.
LOL! Does the entropy not increase with time? Does not a chemical reaction proceed net in one direction: feed stock to result?
You are so confused.
It is you who is the author of confusion, and I do not subscribe to your nonsense!Of course you subscribe to lots of nonsense. You thrive on it.
Does all chemical reactions proceed net in only one direction? It's a simple yes and no answer, and I have already provided you with the answer in my previous post! Answer the simple question, and we'll let the reader decide who is the confused one!
Gravock
Of course you subscribe to lots of nonsense. You thrive on it.
I thrive on the Truth, and the Truth may appear to be nonsense to you because you don't have all of the information and/or have the wrong information. You're not able to answer your own question, LOL!LOL! A review of your posts says otherwise.
One last time, so the reader can make their decision on who is the confused one. Does a reversible chemical reaction proceed in both directions?
Gravock
Trolling, trolling, trolling down the stream we go. Do you think trolling is better when you shout? Do you think that a chemical reaction that has gone forward to equilibrium goes backwards from whence it came without external energy?
MarkE,
Does a reversible chemical reaction proceed in both directions?
Gravock
Shout, shake, spam, do whatever you like to do the trolling that you do so well. You cannot save profitis from the fact that from the time the reaction starts, it drives forward until it reaches equilibrium. Once at equilibrium it does not drive net backwards: the forward and reverse rates are the same. It did not drive net backwards on the way to equilibrium either. Zoom the camera back and what you have at T0 is a set of reactants and what you have later are a bunch of reaction products and absent input of external energy: greater entropy. The system has run down and there is nothing that you can do about it without adding energy.
LOL! Enron style accounting is amazing stuff.
LOL! Learn to count. Oh, that's right you have struggles somewhere between 3 and 4.
You need to learn how to count by weight! It's fast, easy and a highly accurate method of counting! It's an art of counting without counting (i'm sure you will struggle with this concept also, lol).Dude: Weight is not energy.
Gravock
Dude: Weight is not energy.
Are you lost ... yet again?
Another psychological projection of yourself. It is you who is lost and way out in left field. I'm not even sure if you can be found anywhere near the ballpark. I'll ask again, where did I ever say weight is energy?Trolling, trolling down the river.
Gravock
Trolling, trolling down the river.
Don't underestimate chinese research pomodoro,they have a coupla trillion dollars loose change lying aroundThis is kind of interesting. Research in Chinese journals is often considered of low quality. There are a lot of reasons, poor controls - that is it's exceptionally unlikely to get caught, political pressure and high competition, high value of success and low cost of failure. The example that often gets cited is in acupuncture trials Chinese journals have a 100% success rate. In American journals they have close to 0%. Acupuncture is only slightly removed from fantasy in terms of mechanism. So it's true likelihood should be closer to that of the American journals but for some reason Chinese journals just can't manage to show no effect.
@sarkeizen.i dare you to build and test oneSince Philip hasn't got his dating site generating the millions required for the next generation of quenco I thought I'd just point out this argument which is pervasive throughout profitis's shittalking.
Lol @sarkeizen..ever tried to seal hydrogen gas in a leakproof bulb with 2 wires sticking out of it?You've made my point. That what you constantly claimed could simply build and it would be proof positive is something the vast majority of people can't build. Hence you admit you were bullshitting people...again.
I thought notThinking does not now, nor I expect ever will be. Your strong point.
Relax @sarkeizen it won't be long now.Yes it will. However it still is interesting how you went on and on and on and on and on and on about how it was soooo easy to make this...
pomodoro is doing good work that should produce useful data. While I think that it is extremely unlikely that the experiment will indicate against the second law I am content to wait and see what the experiment does show.That's kind of beside the point I was making. Profits has preached "build it","build it","build it","build it","build it","build it" at people for months. However regardless of how helpful pomodoro is being. It's pretty clear that this couldn't have been done by very many people.
That's kind of beside the point I was making. Profits has preached "build it","build it","build it","build it","build it","build it" at people for months. However regardless of how helpful pomodoro is being. It's pretty clear that this couldn't have been done by very many people.What I am trying to suggest is that we table such issues until pomodoro's experiments reach a conclusion. I do not wish to discourage pomodoro by getting into a food fight over profitis' prior claims, and his failure to support them. If pomodoro's experiments end up failing to support profitis, then anyone will be able to point out that even with a great deal of quality effort, that profitis claims fall down when he insisted that text book references would support them. If pomodoro's experiments show something interesting, then we get to learn what they show. And if the incredible happens, then we'll have something far more interesting on our hands than profitis' bravado.
Which makes profits's argument bullshit.
What I am trying to suggest is that we table such issues until pomodoro's experiments reach a conclusion.I'm not certain that with tinkerers this is usefully achieved.
I do not wish to discourage pomodoro by getting into a food fight over profitis' prior claims, and his failure to support them.It's not my intent to discourage pomodoro. However I consider the probability that profitis is correct to be so vanishingly small that I don't see discouraging pomodoro to be risking anything.
If pomodoro's experiments end up failing to support profitis, then anyone will be able to point out that even with a great deal of quality effort, that profitis claims fall downTo what end? To dissuade people from believing Profitis? I don't really see a line forming in that queue. To dissuade profitis? Please.
I'm not certain that with tinkerers this is usefully achieved.It's not my intent to discourage pomodoro. However I consider the probability that profitis is correct to be so vanishingly small that I don't see discouraging pomodoro to be risking anything.To what end?Pomodoro's experiments provide direct visual evidence of the actual behaviors.
To dissuade people from believing Profitis? I don't really see a line forming in that queue. To dissuade profitis? Please.It's up to profitis to decide how to behave when the experiment is done. That hasn't been written yet.
it's is far, far, far more likely that he would simply believe that something wasn't done just so. Same reason that doomsday cults don't change their minds even when the world doesn't end.Remember when we all got on the big space ark. But no one was supposed to tell the ... Oh, never mind!
There is simply less dissonance in believing that something wasn't done exactly right than to believe that all his beliefs are false. Considering how many variables exist in an experiment it's the most likely outcome.I think that goes without saying.
The more important point IMHO is that profits claimed that this would be so incredibly easy to demonstrate. That thesis is already disproved.
Pomodoro's experiments provide direct visual evidence of the actual behaviors.So far it looks a lot like it's just aimless tinkering. I think that will be pretty apparent when Pomodoro runs out of caring before profitis runs out of tweaks.
It's up to profitis to decide how to behave when the experiment is done. That hasn't been written yet.Aren't you directing me to take some kind of action or cease some kind of action based on some outcome that "hasn't been written yet"? How is that different than me taking action based on the probability of success and the probability of other peoples behavior and the probability of the behavior of Profitis? I just looked at the outcomes, and did an informal decision tree. The most rational response is...not really to care that much about if Pomodoro stops experimenting because of me.
So far it looks a lot like it's just aimless tinkering. I think that will be pretty apparent when Pomodoro runs out of caring before profitis runs out of tweaks.Pomodoro has announced that he is about done and his results do not support Profitis' claims. Profitis has tacitly acknowledged that the experiments fail to support his claims. He just recently stated that he will have to do a demonstration himself.
I was asking you to not rock the boat before Pomodoro is done. Pomodoro has put a good deal of time and money into his experiments. He has been careful to address Profitis' objections along the way. That adds new information. I for one would like to see that information, and ask that since you don't care, ask that you do not disturb matters.
Aren't you directing me to take some kind of action or cease some kind of action based on some outcome that "hasn't been written yet"? How is that different than me taking action based on the probability of success and the probability of other peoples behavior and the probability of the behavior of Profitis? I just looked at the outcomes, and did an informal decision tree. The most rational response is...not really to care that much about if Pomodoro stops experimenting because of me.
Profitis has tacitly acknowledged that the experiments fail to support his claims.Perhaps but he has tacitly acknowledged that my analysis of his response was correct. To him Pomodoro didn't provide any evidence against his point. Pomodoro just didn't do it right either because of some technical detail or that Pomodoro is secretly you or myself.
I was asking you to not rock the boat before Pomodoro is done. Pomodoro has put a good deal of time and money into his experiments. He has been careful to address Profitis' objections along the way.Put another way, if Pomodoro was trying to trisect an angle with only a compass and straightedge. Should I still alter my behavior?
That adds new information.Actually if the prior is ridiculously insanely and exceptionally low. The amount of information an experiment - which only confirms the highly probable outcome - adds can not be very significant. Negative results are important but not all negative results can be equally important.
since you don't care, ask that you do not disturb matters.What don't I care about? What I said was that the probability that this experiment would yield anything is so low that while I don't intend to bother pomodoro. I believe that what is being risked there is worth almost exactly nothing.
Perhaps but he has tacitly acknowledged that my analysis of his response was correct. To him Pomodoro didn't provide any evidence against his point.Profitis is unlikely to just concede.
Pomodoro just didn't do it right either because of some technical detail or that Pomodoro is secretly you or myself.Don't give anything away!
The request which is becoming more and more moot as Pomodoro wraps up was for the simple favor of not discouraging it from reaching it's natural if highly predictable outcome. Let the data tell the story, even if it is the same story as before.
Put another way, if Pomodoro was trying to trisect an angle with only a compass and straightedge. Should I still alter my behavior?Actually if the prior is ridiculously insanely and exceptionally low. The amount of information an experiment - which only confirms the highly probable outcome - adds can not be very significant.
Negative results are important but not all negative results can be equally important.What don't I care about? What I said was that the probability that this experiment would yield anything is so low that while I don't intend to bother pomodoro. I believe that what is being risked there is worth almost exactly nothing.Do I think that there is any merit to Profitis claims? No, I have not seen any evidence that there is, and his go against well-established understanding. As confident as I may be with conventional understandings, I do not wish to get trapped by hubris. While expectations of anything unusual were always very low, I encourage people who are willing to conduct careful experiments as Pomodoro has done. Several things could have happened. One is that Pomodoro could have found unusual results that were the result of an experiment defect. Ideally, the underlying cause would be found adding to knowledge of possible experiment pit falls. I consider such knowledge valuable.
Let the data tell the story, even if it is the same story as before.If the odds are exceptionally low of a meaningful unusual result. Guess what is many, many times more likely? A meaningless unusual result. This is exactly why it is actually detrimental to science to run homeopathy trials. The prior is so incredibly low that all unusual results are likely to be meaningless.
I do not wish to get trapped by hubris.Have you considered giving up the irrational belief that any idea should be tested experimentally? That just as much hubris as believing any other idea is unshakable. Even with infinite resources highly unlikely experiments will produce many times more noise than signal. So all you do is produce mountains of bad data.
I encourage people who are willing to conduct careful experiments as Pomodoro has done.I encourage people to realize that any experiment without a probabilisticly bounded expectation either must have an exceptionally large effect side or is effectively useless.
One is that Pomodoro could have found unusual results that were the result of an experiment defect. Ideally, the underlying cause would be found adding to knowledge of possible experiment pit falls. I consider such knowledge valuable.That's your most likely case of getting information out of this kind of experiment? Please. P(UR) = probability of unusual result from ordinary circumstance - essentially this is inversely proportional to the strength of your methodology. Since Karpen's Pile and other magic often have little in the way of explained mechanism. This will often be higher than in other experiments. P(FU) = probability of finding the reason for an unusual result. Often co-morbid with P(UR). P(URU) = Likelihood that unusual result is unique. If it's not unique then it adds no information to science. i.e. finding a possible ordinary explanation for an unusual result in a book.
If the odds are exceptionally low of a meaningful unusual result. Guess what is many, many times more likely? A meaningless unusual result. This is exactly why it is actually detrimental to science to run homeopathy trials.Extraordinary observations require extraordinary validation. It is a folly of hubris to unilaterally declare that low probability dictates that an experiment should not be conducted. There is a big difference between reasonable allocation of research resources and dictating that an answer is absolutely known.
The prior is so incredibly low that all unusual results are likely to be meaningless.It is important to distinguish the differences between: likely, extremely likely, and absolutely true. There are many foolish ideas that a number of people assign inexplicable probabilities to, including belief that they are true when solid evidence runs counter. But none of us are omniscient.
Have you considered giving up the irrational belief that any idea should be tested experimentally?Before I give up an idea I must first have it.
That just as much hubris as believing any other idea is unshakable.Agreed. I have not argued that any idea should be tested. I argue the idea that if someone wishes to expend their resources testing an idea, even if the idea seems silly, that I see no good reason to discourage such an act.
Even with infinite resources highly unlikely experiments will produce many times more noise than signal. So all you do is produce mountains of bad data.Badly conducted experiments make noise. Well conducted experiments produce reliable data.
I encourage people to realize that any experiment without a probabilisticly bounded expectation either must have an exceptionally large effect side or is effectively useless.That's your most likely case of getting information out of this kind of experiment? Please. P(UR) = probability of unusual result from ordinary circumstance - essentially this is inversely proportional to the strength of your methodology. Since Karpen's Pile and other magic often have little in the way of explained mechanism. This will often be higher than in other experiments. P(FU) = probability of finding the reason for an unusual result. Often co-morbid with P(UR). P(URU) = Likelihood that unusual result is unique. If it's not unique then it adds no information to science. i.e. finding a possible ordinary explanation for an unusual result in a book.I find value in determining the sorts of errors that occur in experiments so as to improve the reliability of experiments. That means that an experiment that produces a false positive has educational value provided the reason for the false positive is tracked down. Case in point was the FTL neutrino experiments at CERN. An unusual result was reported. It was the result of all things a loose optical connector. The episode taught many people valuable lessons in conducting experiments.
A limit approaching zero is distinct from zero.
How likely would you say that P(UR) * P(FU) * P(URU) is?
I'd guess "so close to zero that you might as well count it as zero".
It is a folly of hubris to unilaterally declare that low probability dictates that an experiment should not be conducted.I'm not sure what "unilateral" means in this context but I will say that data should drive your decisions, all your decisions. Including the decision to run the experiment. As soon as you (or someone else says) that we should ignore the data saying that the experiment is stupid and perform the experiment - that is being just as arrogant as ignoring that true equipoise exists.
It is important to distinguish the differences between: likely, extremely likely, and absolutely true.I disagree, those distinctions are both difficult to determine and are subsumed but a much better criterion: Is the experiment likely to produce useful data? The rationality of performing an experiment is directly proportional to this.
But none of us are omniscient.Precisely! Which is why a validating experiment without having an understanding it's likelihood of success is worthless - as an experiment and performing an experiment which is only going to succeed 1 in 10^1000 times is equally so.
Before I give up an idea I must first have it.If you're talking about research which is hypothesis generating. This is fine but you have to let go of the end result being meaningful and you would design your experiment differently than profitis did.
I argue the idea that if someone wishes to expend their resources testing an idea, even if the idea seems silly, that I see no good reason to discourage such an act.There are no good reasons to discourage bad science? or is something that is far more likely to produce bad data rather than good somehow not "bad science"?
That means that an experiment that produces a false positive has educational value provided the reason for the false positive is tracked down.Only if it's novel. I'll also point out that this is moving the goalposts somewhat. Value to the extant body of work is different than "might possibly be helpful to someone somewhere sometime about something maybe!".
Case in point was the FTL neutrino experiments at CERN. An unusual result was reported. It was the result of all things a loose optical connector. The episode taught many people valuable lessons in conducting experimentsHowever it's a lesson that is impossible to learn from profitis's experiment. So it's not a very good example. OPERA had a confidence interval. Profitis has shit squared. It was having a probabilistic model that MADE that lesson possible.
A limit approaching zero is distinct from zero.Irrelevant. Every day, you personally treat hundreds of thousands of non-zero probabilities as if they were zero (at least). Thousands of those (at least) are greater than the probability of pomodoros experiment producing useful data. So to me, this is just cherry picking.
I'm not sure what "unilateral" means in this context but I will say that data should drive your decisions, all your decisions. Including the decision to run the experiment. As soon as you (or someone else says) that we should ignore the data saying that the experiment is stupid and perform the experiment - that is being just as arrogant as ignoring that true equipoise exists.In the one case we have an apriori declaration that we should not collect data, because the likelihood that new useful information is low. On the other hand we have a decision to collect data recognizing that the likelihood that it will yield new useful information is low. There is no arrogance in acknowledging the data we have collected and the probabilities surrounding any new data that we collect. I submit that there is great arrogance in declaring that because a likelihood is low that we MUST treat the likelihood as zero, so much so that we must avoid collecting new data. I am sorry but that is really bad logic. At what arbitrary confidence level do you declare that all data collection MUST stop?
Pomodoro has performed carefully constructed experiments, and there is little surprise that his results are consistent with general understanding and inconsistent with Profitis' extraordinary claims. How is this not useful? Why is it that you appear to declare this "bad science"?
I disagree, those distinctions are both difficult to determine and are subsumed but a much better criterion: Is the experiment likely to produce useful data? The rationality of performing an experiment is directly proportional to this. Precisely! Which is why a validating experiment without having an understanding it's likelihood of success is worthless - as an experiment and performing an experiment which is only going to succeed 1 in 10^1000 times is equally so.If you're talking about research which is hypothesis generating. This is fine but you have to let go of the end result being meaningful and you would design your experiment differently than profitis did.
I gather that maybe you do not do much lab work. There is much that goes wrong in a lab that people do not predict or expect. It takes quite a bit of experience for people to get really rigorous about the way they conduct themselves in a lab. Experiments with expected outcomes are fundamentally useful to that process, both for the experimenters in the lab and all observers. Pomodoro is clearly very experienced, and has conducted his work carefully. He has provided a wonderful example of how to go about setting up an experiment, and conducting verifying experiments to cross-check results. Those are important skills to share. Were we to discourage that sort of behavior then I submit we create a vacuum that leaves people more likely to conduct poorly controlled experiments because we never taught them any better.
There are no good reasons to discourage bad science? or is something that is far more likely to produce bad data rather than good somehow not "bad science"?Only if it's novel. I'll also point out that this is moving the goalposts somewhat. Value to the extant body of work is different than "might possibly be helpful to someone somewhere sometime about something maybe!".
Of course sane people make most of their decisions treating less than absolute certainties as absolute. There is no other practical way to function. It should guide people on how to make productive use of their resources. Should and must are quite distinct. Take for instance the diversion that you and I afford ourselves by posting here. It is a safe bet that you assign a very low probability of positively influencing for example: Profitis. Yet, you expend much energy engaging him. Is it productive? For purposes of changing Profitis' stated views it probably isn't. But that doesn't matter. It's a diversion you choose to engage in, and are most certainly free to do so. You may or may not manage to influence others who are not so dug in as Profitis with some of the valuable mathematical and logical skills that you possess. Even if you don't, the diversion does something for you.
However it's a lesson that is impossible to learn from profitis's experiment. So it's not a very good example. OPERA had a confidence interval. Profitis has shit squared. It was having a probabilistic model that MADE that lesson possible.Irrelevant. Every day, you personally treat hundreds of thousands of non-zero probabilities as if they were zero (at least). Thousands of those (at least) are greater than the probability of pomodoros experiment producing useful data. So to me, this is just cherry picking.
In the one case we have an apriori declaration that we should not collect data, because the likelihood that new useful information is low.I'm not really making an a priori argument or even a declaration in the way you appear to be using it. Nice attempt to use loaded terms though! Please be more honest (and less arrogant) in the future. I'm talking about a simple consequence of math which I assume you agree applies here - that a wrong result was many orders of magnitude higher than new data. You rather carefully left that out and talked as if the only consequence was "no useful information". It would be nice if you could be objective about this.
On the other hand we have a moronic decision to collect data recognizing that the likelihood that it will yield new useful information is low. There is no arrogance in acknowledging the data we have collected and the probabilities surrounding any new data that we collect.Doing something implies that it is worth doing. To use your terms you are making an arrogant a priori declaration that this was worth doing. I would suggest a better criterion. Arrogance is simply how much you are willing to put your views above the evidence. For the sake of argument lets say that this experiment could be done millions of times (or millions of variants of the same experiment could be done) without getting new data specific to the experiment i.e. that which we are attempting to demonstrate. The evidence in this case says this experiment is not worth doing. In fact it will be indistinguishable for the vast majority of people who attempt it - to attempting to trisect an angle with a compass and straightedge. The data says: This isn't worth doing. Doing it anyway is putting your views far, far, far above the actual evidence.
we must avoid collecting new data.You're being a bit deceptive here. What I'm saying is it's only "new data" if the result is novel and correct. An experiment where the unexpected outcome which is far, far, far, far more likely to be bad than good. You are not actually collecting any new data (in the vast majority of cases). More accurately I'm saying "stop doing experiments of this kind" or "do better experiments".
I am sorry but that is really bad logic.Nope but please show me my error by providing a syllogism demonstrating your point using the terms as I have defined them without omitting anything.
At what arbitrary confidence level do you declare that all data collection MUST stop?"confidence level" isn't really the right word since there are lots of reliability estimates. CL being only one. Secondly you appear to be misunderstanding the difference between a reliability estimate and a prior probability. A better way of putting it is, assuming we are talking about a CL it's the ratio of the prior to it.
Pomodoro has performed carefully constructed experiments, and there is little surprise that his results are consistent with general understanding and inconsistent with Profitis' extraordinary claims. How is this not useful?The likely outcome is not novel. The most likely novel outcome will be wrong. How is that useful to science?
Why is it that you appear to declare this "bad science"?See above. It's interesting that you can't see why this would be true.
Experiments with expected outcomes are fundamentally useful to that process, both for the experimenters in the lab and all observers.Expected novel outcomes. Experiments where the expected outcome has already been demonstrated so many times that the most likely case by an enormous margin for a novel outcome is a mistake is so far from the kind of expected outcomes which you want in the lab makes your statement much closer to a lie than an honest ignorant mistake.
He has provided a wonderful example of how to go about setting up an experiment, and conducting verifying experiments to cross-check results. Those are important skills to share.As stated before this is you simply moving the goalposts. I mean I understand that moving from talking about if something was good science to "if there's any possible way this might be beneficial to someone somewhere somehow" helps you avoid being wrong but it's a little less than honest to consider that you're doing anything but reaching here. :D
At the third ad hom I just stopped reading.For reference an "ad hominem" is technically an attack on you (e.g. your abilities, your honesty) to make an argument. I haven't done anything like that. :-) If I have, again I'd be happy to be corrected IF you can provide a more formal argument demonstrating your point. (You can use the term colloquially to just mean "insult" but if so you might as well use that term instead)
all air oxygen experiments require none of the above.Yawn. Weak logic. If air oxygen experiments clearly and unambiguously demonstrate a 2LOT violation and can be done by anyone. Then if you want pomodoro to keep doing experiments. It would seem far far far more reasonable to convince him/her of the possibility by doing that experiment.
Sarkeizen I have no more goodwill to offer you. If you think that constitutes a win, then so be it.Don't you find it pretty odd that your goodwill appears to have been depleted in a single post? Aren't you someone who has repeatedly ignored the barbs of many far less polite folk than myself for much longer? Not only that but you haven't just ignored them but you've responded by attempting to focus on the issue? Aren't you asking me to believe that I somehow stumbled on the a few sentences that sends you packing?
So where exactly is Philip going to make his announcement from?
It's not here since he left in a huff and unless it's an entirely difference kind of product then it's not from his website.
Philip - What was/is the announcement?There's another thread called...HABTEC I think. It has the current manifestation of his crazy.
Quenco's are edging there way onto the scene.here's a quenco based on continual cyclic hydrogen spilloverI've heard him talk on his PN diode nonsense.
Incorrect @sarkeizen.sheehan is only allowed to show or openly discuss a very,very,very limited amount of shit (propriety,nda,neon-sign fear etc ).he gets paid,he gets paid big.he is very well equipped in the labEither I have to believe Sheehan that 2LOT violations are as easy to construct as he discussed in his lecture or he is wrong. The math is simply on the side of the later.
Incorrect @sarkeizen.sheehan is only allowed to show or openly discuss a very,very,very limited amount of shit (propriety,nda,neon-sign fear etc ).he gets paid,he gets paid big.he is very well equipped in the labIf and when Dr. Sheehan can ever report a confirmed violation of the second law, we can all be very certain that he will report as much. To paraphrase Dr. Sheehan: "The Second Law is true, except when it isn't." Finding an exception if such an exception exists is the big, yet to happen trick.
Math@sarkeizen.Is against 2LOT violations. If you had a real argument that could be put forward formally. We would likely have seen it ages ago.
A day and a half @sarkeizen.a day and a half.a book will be written with that title later on by somebodybut it likely won't provide a formal argument for 2LOT violations either.
If it begins with the words, 'a day and a half' it most certainly willYawn. Go back to faking knowledge about medicine.
apparently withdrawn his claims to violation of the Second Law of ThermodynamicsCall me curious...where did he do this?
Call me curious...where did he do this?AFAIK he gave up promoting his claims earlier this year. His website is now some sort of Japanese dating site: www.quentron.com.
Ah I thought he might have said somewhere that he doesn't think his device works. Unless he's a troll I'd expect that he still thinks it works.Whatever deluded thoughts he may or may not still have he has stopped promoting the idea that he has a way to cheat the Second Law.
Notice the words 'steady-state'Engines run at steady-state until they run out of fuel. A steady supply of gas is required and consumed.
MarkE,You express a victim mentality. You have yet to disprove your detractors. The last I recall you declared that you were folding up your tent because you were unhappy with skeptical questions. We are at least three years downstream from when you promised to absolutely and unequivocally show a single reservoir heat to electricity converter. Do you have such a converter today?
I had decided some time ago when constantly attacked by Sarkeizen that it was not worth posting but on coming here tonight and reading this thread and seeing MarkE and recent post I felt I should respond at least once.
It is charming that you've stopped by to share this unprovked personal attack. Do you feel better now?
MarkE, you sir are rude, you pretend to be otherwise and sometimes use a passive aggressive stance of calling me Mr Hardcastle rather than Phil, but reading the past comments you have made you are clearly just an ego maniac who wants to feel worthwhile by having cheap uneducated shots rather than contributing anything material.
That's nice. Where's the data?
For the record I say I have never been more confident of my position and my work.
Again: Where's the data?
I have and continue to ever more effectively violate the Second Law of TD.
Again: Where's the data?
Of course working as a micro team on a massive breakthrough takes time and has had problems, but we are very happy with our progress toward commercial product.
So, what is your purpose in coming here today?
This forum is not a place to discuss my work and the science as it is populated by too many vindictive trolls and fools.
You have expressed a number of unworkable concepts over the years. Perhaps you have new idea that is viable. Absent expression of the idea there is no way to tell.
My work will be proved by product, not by words.
Pomodoro has done a fantastic job of humoring Profitis' claimed ideas. Alas it came to naught.
I applaud Profitis and pomodoro who are to my mind two people who at least give some efforts to discuss science and experimentation.
To all the nice people here, hi.
I had decided some time ago when constantly attacked by SarkeizenIt's interesting how when someone, like yourself exists in an echo chamber you start to slowly change your story. While anyone who reads this thread can see. My original comments where about information theory. You being less qualified than a houseplant on this subject simply ignored my comments from the beginning. At that point the conversation - in the loosest sense of the term - ended. After that it was more about the people here who unquestioningly swallowed what you said and you berating anyone who decided to accept the larger body of evidence against your beliefs. Eventually because you have had nothing to say (What can you say when you produce nothing except "It's going to happen soon"). The discussion left your technology entirely. Only occasionally veering back when you did something weird like start selling cartoons or offering or had your website taken over by someone from Japan.
cheap uneducated shots rather than contributing anything material.How is MarkE's position "uneducated" when you admit that science overwhelmingly favors his position?
For the record I say I have never been more confident of my position and my work.Who cares? This means nothing to most and should mean nothing to anyone.
Of course working as a micro team on a massive breakthrough takes timeHow did this become "of course" from "Be ready to eat your hat on <insert one of a good fifteen specific dates>"?
My work will be proved by product, not by words.You know in probability theory every negative result. Every time you don't produce a device - which is for everyone here ALL the time - your work is less likely to be correct.
I applaud Profitis and pomodoro who are to my mind two people who at least give some efforts to discuss science and experimentation.I cited about two or three papers within my first dozen posts. You have cited zero in response. :)
Sarkeizen'My original comments where about information theory.'Information theory and complexity theory both have something to say about Philips alleged quentronium. :)
What is it you want to know.speak in terms that all who watch can understand including children.
What does it have to say about chaos and order and their spontaneity.No idea what those terms mean. Sorry, I don't speak troll very well. :)
Because your an idiot.viewers can understand what those terms mean but you can'tI fully admit that I am not very good at speaking troll. So unless you can translate I can't respond. :)
if it can power your computer then obviously it can yesNot what I'm saying. It is a computer (but not necessarily a universal one) in and of itself.
Don't lie :)Sadly I'm not. If I knew what trolls like you, SeaMonkey, Magluvin, Joel, Tink meant I wouldn't be constantly asking you all to define things. :) That would save a lot of time considering how 90% of all of your posts are just dancing around simple questions like that. :)
If its got a maxwell demon in it yes trueNo special requirements. It is claimed that it sorts molecules by energy.
Mark E'A steady supply of gas is required and consumed.'So you think you can put a couple of pieces of metal and some gas in a bell jar and then create and maintain a temperature difference indefinitely, is that what you think? If so, you shouldn't have any trouble demonstrating something easy like running for a month. Lot's of luck to you. You will need it.
You have failed to tell us what fuel and what consumption. highly irregular for a scientist who supports the known laws of physics.
You mean like dancing around demands for an statements' assumption-statusAgain I don't speak troll so I don't know what you're saying. However you were constantly avoiding requests for to provide the assumptions to your argument before that you avoided answering the question if your argument had assumptions before that you avoided providing an argument. It's pretty much all you do. :)
Its more correct to say it sorts energy by molecule.Philip's diagrams show energetic molecules being separated from less energetic molecules. :) :)
Did anybody understand this? Crickets..quit dancing mr sarkeizen and start arguingI'll clarify
Yes his device can be viewed that wayThat's what he claims his device is. Sorry if you disagree. Take it up with Philip "king of late deliveries" Hardcastle. If you wish to fight about some other machine with some other working then use a different thread. :)
Say what?Please point out the word you don't understand. :)
Ok ok so let's go with the maxwell basketball star thenAre you agreeing that Philip is claiming his device sorts high-energy molecules from lower energy molecules. :)
Please point out the word you don't understand. :)
You mean the whole paragraph.Yawn. Do you understand the sentence: "Your mom asked you to eat some cake?"
For the sake of argument yeah sure :)So could the same principle be used to sort data?
Mark E'So you think you can put a couple of pieces of metalAre you powering your house with a Karpen pile yet? Why not?
and some gas in a bell jar and then create and
maintain a temperature difference indefinitely, is that
what you think? If so, you shouldn't have any trouble
demonstrating something easy like running for a
month. Lot's of luck to you. You will need it.'
Lol.vasilescu did exactly that for 60years and counting brother
Yawn. Do you understand the sentence: "Your mom asked you to eat some cake?"'
YesThen you also understand -by substitution- what "You were asked to tell me your assumptions" means.
it can only sort data according this/that.two bits of information.You don't think that bits can be aggregated? :)
I was asked to tell you my assumptionsTo what you claim is an argument which is formal AND compelling. Right?
What do you mean. You meannnn self-grow?Put together with another device to create a device with more bits. :)
Mark E'So you think you can put a couple of pieces of metalAllegedly he did. The device is not available for independent evaluation. Go put a AA alkaline cell in the drawer and come back in 10 years. It will still have 80% of its charge capacity without any claim of a second law violation.
and some gas in a bell jar and then create and
maintain a temperature difference indefinitely, is that
what you think? If so, you shouldn't have any trouble
demonstrating something easy like running for a
month. Lot's of luck to you. You will need it.'
Lol.vasilescu did exactly that for 60years and counting brother
mark E:'Are you powering your house with a Karpen pile yet?There is a density issue alright. And in that you have destroyed your own claims. Thanks for playing again.
Why not?'
Energy density issues lol.
I have a question!It's Philip, Profitis and Lumen. A real meeting of minds...in the loosest sense of the term. I wonder if the religious nut will show up? Who else? "register" who just kind of makes shit up?
Now that there is a room temperature "Maxwell Demon"To what do you refer?
Sarky? Your the expert.Only compared to some. For example compared to some I'm an expert in English for knowing the difference between a possessive pronoun and a contraction.
I thought I asked just a simple question.Riddle me this. Your knowledge of information theory is somewhere between zero and negative a million right? Why do you suppose that you can ask a question of relevance?
Riddle me this. Your knowledge of information theory is somewhere between zero and negative a million right? Why do you suppose that you can ask a question of relevance?
Here's a better link to Fu's (ancient) paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0311104)
Yawn. It's no more a refutation of information theory than any of the bozos here selling experimental error. Essentially Fu claims something happened which hasn't been replicated by anyone reputable. It's recorded in a paper (and a video) which AFAIK has never been published in a Journal even by the comparatively lax standards in China.
Actually it has been replicated and is in fact known to operate as described.Perhaps "Known" in the delusional sense you use the term. But is it "replicated by someone reputable" - in the sense that it was done in a highly controlled environment. If so, where is the journal article of that? Nowhere it seems. From what I can see this is over ELEVEN years old and it's pretty much just sat there but I'm sure you have cooked up a conspiracy theory to help you sleep at night.
I was quite sure you couldn't answer that one simple question.How do you know your question is simple? Put another way: You're asking something like: "When is purple?"
My book is now closed!I think you mean "mind". ;)
I have a question!Capacitors store charge, just in case you didn't know. Fu neglected to provide or use a discharge mechanism. Such a shunt should have been engaged across the device output prior to any handling of the magnet and remained closed until the system was mechanically stable.
Now that there is a room temperature "Maxwell Demon", does that indicate that "Information Theory" is wrong or only some parts may be wrong?
Sarky? Your the expert.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/w3jvt0z3336f9h7/Maksvelov%20demon%20pobedjen.pdf (http://www.mediafire.com/view/w3jvt0z3336f9h7/Maksvelov%20demon%20pobedjen.pdf)
Just in case you don't know.
Mark E:'There is a density issue alright. And in that you haveWhat you said was that you don't power your home with a Karpen cell or cells due to insufficient energy density. Let's see if you can figure out how that statement of yours destroys your claim that the Karpen cell violates the Second Law. The chill in the air isn't from a Karpen cell spontaneously cooling its surroundings.
destroyed your own claims. Thanks for playing
again.'
My only claim was vasilescu karpen kelvin-law discrepency.I did not say that I am powering my tv,hotwater and radio with it.
To what you claim is an argument which is formal AND compelling. Right?'
Again you are requestingThat you agree to statements you've already agreed to. Several times. Shall I dig up the quotes (probably the answer is "yes" here since you're just trying to delay this. ) :)
Put together with another device to create a device with more bits. :)'
Same as a computer yes.So you can, given sufficient materials create something that sorts strings of bits of whatever size you want.
a single two-bit can spontaneously grow into a larger magnitude two-bit yes.I told you. I don't speak troll. :)
Shall I dig up the quotes (probably the answer is "yes" here since you're just trying to delay this. )
On one conditionSorry. No conditions. So I guess it's off to find the places where you claim that what you provided was an argument, that it was formal and compelling. :)
have to promote damage to the excessively objective scientificAgain, I don't speak troll. So that's just gibberish to me. If you want to try again use standard English usage. :)
So you can, given sufficient materials create something that sorts strings of bits of whatever size you want.
YesWell then you have been proven wrong. :) Clearly there this would mean that sorting would have a large delay too large for a device using quantum effects. Philips device according to him requires quantum effects. Hence his device can't work. QED.
I told you. I don't speak troll. :)
Let's wait and see :)You just admitted that YOU speak troll. Awesome. :)
Sorry. No conditions. So I guess it's off to find the places where you claim that what you provided was an argument, that it was formal and compelling.
This does absolute zero damage to my statement.Then you shouldn't have a problem agreeing with it.
Sarkeizen:'Are you saying that your argument is compelling'Do you agree that you are saying in the above quote that your argument is compelling here.
Yes
Well then you have been proven wrong. :) Clearly there this would mean that sorting would have a large delay too large for a device using quantum effects. Philips device according to him requires quantum effects. Hence his device can't work. QED.
english pleaseAlgorithms work in a particular complexity class - they take a certain amount of time (or an average amount of time) to complete given an input. Quantum algorithms - algorithms that use quantum effects are no exception. Because of how slow this machine sorts it can't be using a quantum algorithm. However that would be required if you're using a quantum effect . Which is what Philip claims his machine is. Hence his machine - the thing he described - doesn't work. :)
Wrong.I have a big issue with it if it does no damage to the statement.the statement exists in and for standard science.it must be dealt with accordingly.Again. I have no idea what trolls mean when they say this. :) You might as well just mash the keyboard. None of what you typed there really qualifies as English. :)
Do you agree that you are saying your argument is compelling here.'
Whatever it is it isn't damaged.So is that a "yes" or "no" or are you saying that YOU don't even know what YOU were saying when you said: "yes"? If you can't be counted on to know what you're talking about then there really isn't any point in having a discussion with you. Is there? :)
The device's demon sorts instantaneously.the quantum sorting is instantaneous hot/cold.Thanks for admitting that. You lose. :) :) :) :) :) :)
So is that a "yes" or "no" or are you saying that YOU don't even know what YOU are saying here? If you can't be counted on to know what you're talking about then there really isn't any point in having a discussion with you. :)
How can you say thisIt's easy. I type and characters come out. So again you either don't know what you're talking about or you refuse to answer questions which clarify your position. :) Either one PROVES that you can't communicate clearly on this subject. :) :) Which kind of makes you lose the argument but I'm pretty sure you don't realize it.
Thanks for admitting that. You lose. :) :) :) :) :) :)
See I wasn't telling the truth there. It's actually the opposite. If it happens instantaneously then it isn't using a quantum effect, in fact anything better than O(n)^1/2 can not be using a quantum effect.'
Does this formula accomodate TWO bits of information on/off.It's not a formula. It's a proof and in computer science - algorithmic proofs are independent of how the computer is organized. That's why it doesn't matter if you implement a sort algorithm on a PC, a MAC, a Russian Setun or a quantum machine. :)
Mark E:What you said was that you don't power your home with a Karpen cell or cells due to insufficient energy density.'You just keep killing yourself and you don't see it.
Precisely.I've only got a few milliwatts-watts of frei energie here at the moment.in absolute violation of kelvin statement.
Mark E'profitis you are completely lost in Sarkeizen'sIf you think that his statement:
statements.'
He's essentially saying a computer cannot programme itself.what do you think he's saying mr E
Quote"It's not a formula. It's a proof and in computer science - algorithmic proofs are independent of how the computer is organized. That's why it doesn't matter if you implement a sort algorithm on a PC, a MAC, a Russian Setun or a quantum machine."
algorithmic proofs are independent of how the computer is organized.
you're saying that a computer cannot programme itself right?No. I'm saying nothing like that. I'm saying that it doesn't matter what the computer you are running an algorithm on it still maintains the same complexity class. If it's O(n) it's always O(n) it doesn't matter if it's a TI-85 Calculator, a quantum machine or a Setun (I mention this a lot because it's a ternary machine - that is it uses trinary code not binary)
Mark E'An algorithmic proof establishes that a given algorithm yields an intended manipulation of input information.'You're misunderstanding the word 'intention'. Mark is talking about the PROOF not the device. An algorithm on a device operates in it's complexity class regardless of if it was developed deliberately to do that or not. When you write a proof you intend to demonstrate something - because - you know - a person is writing the proof. :)
A quenco or anything like a quenco is a oneway valve.for energetic electrons and hence for energy.a passive demon doesn't need 'intention' to manipulate.it is manipulation
Mark E'An algorithmic proof establishes that a given algorithm yields an intended manipulation of input information.'No the various devices that PJH has proposed over the years are not capable of performing such a task. They never have. They never will.
A quenco or anything like a quenco is a oneway valve.for energetic electrons and hence for energy.a passive demon doesn't need 'intention' to manipulate.it is manipulation
@sarkeizen:from wiki:'Applied to the Maxwell's demon/Szilard engineI'm not talking about Maxwell's Demon at all. Not in the tiniest aspect. In fact at no point in this short exchange between you and I do I even mention it. I'm talking about complexity theory and in particular the BBBV theorem. Which states the maximal speedup for a quantum device is O(n^1/2). Philip's device is using quantum mechanics to do it's work. You say Philips device sorts instantaneously. Therefore it is providing a quantum speedup better than O(n^1/2) hence. It is not a quantum device. Thus Philip's device can not work.
Ya but how can you ADRESS anEither this device sorts, or it doesn't. You said it did. The BBBV bounds ALL POSSIBLE ALGORITHMS for a quantum device. So we don't have to know a single piece of other information about the construction or operation of the device for the theorem to still apply.
either this device sorts, or it doesn't. You said it did
It sorts energy requirements. energy must be brought into the equationAbsolutely not. How your data is formatted/encoded is completely utterly and forever unimportant. If you encoded your data using bananas you do not need to discuss the qualities of bananas.
Let me get this straight..you want me to argue for an energy-related information device without adressing energy?
I'm not talking about Maxwell's Demon at all. Not in the tiniest aspect. In fact at no point in this short exchange between you and I do I even mention it. I'm talking about complexity theory and in particular the BBBV theorem. Which states the maximal speedup for a quantum device is O(n^1/2). Philip's device is using quantum mechanics to do it's work. You say Philips device sorts instantaneously. Therefore it is providing a quantum speedup better than O(n^1/2) hence. It is not a quantum device. Thus Philip's device can not work.
Isn't it interesting how utterly lost you get when you don't have something to misinterpret? :)
Sorry, but I just can't hold back on the stupidity of that theorem!One you never read, in a field you've never studied. :) :) :) Let's see how that works out for you. :)
I can take white light and separate all the photons into a perfect spectrum based on their own energy level using only a prism that requires no energy except the energy of the photons themselves.Any reason you think this violates the theorem I'm referencing? I'm guessing the answer is "no" because you seem to think this has something to do with "requiring energy". Which it doesn't, which you would know if you read the paper. Which you won't because it's beyond your ability. :)
It only takes one instance to prove a theory wrong.a) A theorem is different than a theory. A theorem is a mathematical proof.
'ABSOLUTELY and ALWAYS AND FOREVER NECESSARY to know about some quality of the information.'
This isnot necessaryThen it's not necessary to know about what or how the device is sorting. Just that it's sorting. The computer that I'm typing on right now is "energy related" and yet it is entirely possible to discuss algorithms without any information at all on how the information is stored. Quantum computers, trinary computers - all obey complexity theory. Hence your "energy related" is irrelevant. The BBBV stands. Philips device can not work. :)
Is this necessary for algorithmsThe BBBV requires no assumptions of how the data is stored or encoded. In fact if you knew anything about complexity theory you would know this is true generally.
requires no assumptionsWhat I actually wrote was that the BBBV requires no assumptions about the way things are stored.
Same with the demon so where's the problemSo Philips device requires that it uses quantum effects to work. BBBV says it can't and do what you say it does.
a) A theorem is different than a theory. A theorem is a mathematical proof.
From Wikipedia ” In mathematics, a theorem is a statement that has been proven on the basis of previously established statements, such as other theorems—and generally accepted statements, such as axioms.”Well I suspect you're not exactly a sharp knife in the drawer. People who says "oh that's wrong" but can't say why and can only vaguely point to something else never fill me with much hope for intelligent conversation.
So, your statement itself is incorrect
If I used the word 'sort' before then I was technicaly wrong,apologies,this is why I dislike mechanical representations of the demon.it REACTS instantaneously.reacts to energy demands.ok now?Are you saying that Philip's machine can't sort?
sarkeizen, YOU stated: " a) A theorem is different than a theory. A theorem is a mathematical proof."So your argument is, effectively that the term "theorem" can NEVER in ANY CASE legitimately refer to a proof it can ONLY AND EVER refer to a statement? :)
if you cannot understand that 'a statement', which is ALL a theorem is, is NOT proof by itself
So your argument is, effectively that the term "theorem" can NEVER in ANY CASE legitimately refer to a proof it can ONLY AND EVER refer to a statement? :)a simple "yes" or "no" may suffice for you; you did not say that it 'may refer to' but 'is'.
Just a simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. :)
Aside: Is there a term for people who rely on Wikipedia for their education to the point of sounding stupid? Wikipidiots? Moro-pedians? Not sure if there's one in common use but someone should invent one if not.
sarkeizen, YOU stated: " a) A theorem is different than a theory. A theorem is a mathematical proof."A theorem is more than a mere statement. It is a statement that has been proven.
if you cannot understand that 'a statement', which is ALL a theorem is, is NOT proof by itself, then you may be a very dull knife indeed, likely the dullest in the drawer (at least the drawer that I am in).
a simple "yes" or "no" may suffice for you; you did not say that it 'may refer to' but 'is'.Because it is not necessary in English use. :) To wit: A dog is a quadruped. "dog" can refer to a worthless or contemptible person (m-w) without making any comment on their method of locomotion. Now perhaps, in the linguistic police-state where you grew up they beat you with sticks unless you say "may refer to" in these cases but I assure you, the rest of the world is a (slightly) kinder place. :)
Aside: You assumed that I relied on WikipediaIt seems likely.
I can give you other sources.Sources for what? So far you appear to veer toward and away from a few different arguments:
Do YOU get to make up definitions?Sure, as long as I am clear about my use. Everyone does, it's part of how language evolves. However to answer the larger question: Did I make up a definition here? Obviously not. How I used "theorem" is common enough to be acceptable and does not appear to require any special language in use.
Are you saying that Philip's machine can't sort?
It reacts,the result is a sort.Is the sorting instantaneous?
Sarkeizen, you were wrong in your statementI used a term in a way that it gets used all the time even by people in-field. You seemed to agree that it is a correct usage (otherwise your statement about 'may refer to' would have been pointless) and now seem to backtrack to just asserting yourself as correct. Perhaps because you lost your footing in your previous post? :)
, you made it personal.Not really. I asked you to clarify your position after sharing how my experience shaped my expectations for people who respond the way you did. Funny, how my desire to understand your position is entirely absent from your analysis.
when I do it with the intent to have crystal clear communication that does not require inferring, guessing, reading between the lines etc.LOL. Really? That's the line you're selling here? Perhaps you can point out exactly where in this thread you displayed any obvious lack of understanding as to what I was communicating? No? In other words you didn't have to do any inferring, guessing or even reading between the lines. Not to mention that unless your primary language is Lojban you are likely doing this ALL the time in ordinary conversation probably doing those very things many times in this exchange alone.
This will be my last post on this particular exchange; there are better ways to spend my time.Perhaps you can, when you feel a bit better correct your position and be a bit more reasonable in the future?
No, I enjoy your posts and they are usually enjoyable to read.Yours need some work. :)
Is the sorting instantaneous?
Yeah.a few quadrillianths of a second inbetween react-sortSo it's constantly getting slower then the more bits you add.
No, sarkeizen. My position is unchanged.Why?
A large quenco or a small quenco takes the same time to compute:instantaneous.two quencos or more quencos can begin to form a brain yes,if we shove them in certain arrangements on an electronics boardBut that would mean that the sorting time doesn't change regardless of your input size.
Sarkeizen:'But that would mean that the sorting time doesn't change regardless of your input size.'That no matter how many things you want to sort. It never takes more time.
What do you mean
No, sarkeizen. My position is unchanged.I am sorry to hear that.
"Perhaps you can, when you feel a bit better correct your position and be a bit more reasonable in the future?" My more important matter is dealing with the imminent loss of my last remaining brother.
Wellll...you can sort a billion molecules/particles instantaneously or you can sort forty-five molecules/particles instantaneously yes.takes the same time yesWhat you describe is O(1) complexity. BBBV proves that you can't - with any quantum effect do better than O(N^1/2). So Philip's device doesn't work. :)
Let's look at a common prism infront the sun:i) Demonstrate how you encode any quantity of arbitrary data into the light. So for example all the words in a Shakespearean play.
1)There is data
2)It is sorted
Nonono...that requires millions of DIFFERENT bits.However you said...
Same as a computer yes.So either it can sort "same as a computer" or it can't. So you want to retract that statement too?
Your saying that a prism color-information-sorter is not a computer?Either Philip's device can sort SAME AS a computer or it can't. If anything else can sort SAME AS a computer then you should have no problem explaining how you can encode the words from a Shakespearean play and how it would sort them and how you would read back the sorted data.
It sorts hot from cold that's all it does.does this constitute a computer?You said "same as a computer".
Mr sarkeizen who is the computer expert here?Well if someone says: "Like a computer" they are presuming sufficient expertise as to make that judgement. So are you now saying that you are NOT COMPETENT to have made that statement? I mean that's ok but since you've opened that door. What else have you said and were not sufficiently competent to have made the statement? Perhaps everything?
You can chalk me up another point. Twice in this discussion alone I have Profitis dancing around a question he already answered. :) Well if someone says: "Like a computer" they are presuming sufficient expertise as to make that judgement. So are you now saying that you are NOT COMPETENT to have made that statement? I mean that's ok but since you've opened that door. What else have you said and were not sufficiently competent to have made the statement? Perhaps everything?this is like watching one of those talking stuffed animal bears walk onto Omaha Beach 6/6/1944. The beach is white with profitis' stuffing.
If you're going to try to cop out of being capable. I think I win this hands down. :)
It simply creates an environment where electrons can sort themselves based on their energy level.That's what we call a "distinction without a difference". You could say the same thing about a digital computer. The arrangement of electrons in it's circuits creates an environment where other electrons sort themselves.
One must be careful to apply the mathematical proof within the scope of which it was intended.What you are talking about is what I would call a model. You take a physical system and come up with math that represents some sufficiently large set of cases (enough to be useful). Then you assume that this model is the true mechanism and you start doing useful work from it. A model doesn't necessarily let you say: "Hey you can't do that" because it's based on behavior and there's an inductive problem in moving from the small subset of observable things we've observed to all observable things.
That's what we call a "distinction without a difference". You could say the same thing about a digital computer. The arrangement of electrons in it's circuits creates an environment where other electrons sort themselves.
Not in the distinction you raised. That's the point.
There is a difference!
*sigh* I know this next question will probably set you off into some ignorant rant because somehow you think after never being educated in my field you have some right to say a word about it but here goes:
In Philips device the electrons crash into each other at random gaining and losing energy until by chance one has enough energy to sort itself from the rest.
Philips device does not perform any work and does not sort anything.Nor do his machines as he claims violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If you dispute that fact then you can do this Gedanken experiment: If one were to disconnect the external circuit load what would happen with his apparatus?
While all charged particles aspire to live in a healthy, nurturing environment Montessori for Fermions failed financially.
It simply creates an environment where electrons can sort themselves based on their energy level.
In both examples energy is consumed and entropy of the system increases.
The same as a prism sorts photons based on their energy level.
Some environments can simply cause a reversal in entropy. Like how a magnetic field can steer an electron stream without itself doing any work.
Intent really isn't an issue even though scope is. Sarkeizen has shown that the complexity theorem he cites is applicable to profitis' incorrect claims.
Sometimes theorems don't apply in a case that"s outside of it's intended scope.
Like how nothing can travel faster than light. The mathematical proof is based on applied energy and is absolutely correct, however if the energy is applied from within the moving object and not from an outside source, then something can easily travel faster than light.
One must be careful to apply the mathematical proof within the scope of which it was intended.
The problem with such an idea is coming up with a passive mechanism by which the excited electron segregates and remains segregated from its calmer brethren. The excited electron must pass through some sort of gate or door without an excited electron on the other side passing the other way.
There is a difference!
In your computer the electrons that control do not occur at random but are a function of some control that requires work.
In Philips device the electrons crash into each other at random gaining and losing energy until by chance one has enough energy to sort itself from the rest.
The same as water evaporates, only the most energetic can leave the surface taking it's energy with it and that's why evaporating water is cooler than a sealed bottle of water.
So both cases are self sorting and require nothing else but chance collisions to transfer energy.
In the end a Maxwell Demon cannot work because you need to do work to sort energy levels, but if you create the right environment, they will sort themselves by random collision.
The excited electron must pass through some sort of gate or door without an excited electron on the other side passing the other way.You say that almost as if people had thought of this highly-original idea before. :)
Not in the distinction you raised. That's the point.*sigh* I know this next question will probably set you off into some ignorant rant because somehow you think after never being educated in my field you have some right to say a word about it but here goes:
Don't you think you can simulate this random crashing and sorting on a computer?
The problem with such an idea is coming up with a passive mechanism by which the excited electron segregates and remains segregated from its calmer brethren. The excited electron must pass through some sort of gate or door without an excited electron on the other side passing the other way.
No, a computer cannot simulate random.This is the problem with talking with people who's education is asymptotically close to zero. I guess we do this the hard way. :)
If a prism is a computer then YES the quenco is a computer too.a bit better now?Your prisim fetish is only relevant IF you can show it can sort JUST LIKE A COMPUTER. As you stated a quenco could before. If you now want to say you were not competent enough to say that a quenco could sort JUST LIKE A COMPUTER. That's cool. Just say so. :)
Mark E:'sarkeizen has shown that the complexity theorem he cites is applicable to profitis'FTFY.
but apparantly not to fish scales, or latex gloves, or my underwear or sharpies. I wonder why? This obviously means that I am right! It couldn't possibly that these are all distractions from the argument I just lost.
Mr sarkeizen you said that a two-bit sort requires algo-rythm did you notNo idea what a "two bit sort" is. You said "sort just like a computer". So I assumed that you, knowing what you were talking about meant "can sort the kinds of things a computer can sort". Now perhaps you meant something like "I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about" but that's a pretty obscure reading. :)
any mixed two-component chaotic entity into an ordered state eg hotcold> hot/coldNo idea what this is. I know what a computer is and I know what computers can sort. You've already said that a Quenco can sort "just like a computer" and when I asked that of a prism you said "nooooooo" or something.
doesn't this mean your argument is dead :)
YOU said an instantaneous quantum-sorter is impossible.'Not really. You said it sorted JUST LIKE A COMPUTER. So if you lied to me, or didn't know what you were talking about. Is that my fault? After that I even specified: "So you can, given sufficient materials create something that sorts strings of bits of whatever size you want." and you said yes and that it doesn't matter how large the input data set it still sorts instantaneously. But when I mention a prism sorting the words from a play you say:
Nonono...
This is the problem with talking with people who's education is asymptotically close to zero. I guess we do this the hard way. :)
So even if I have a PRNG which is guaranteed to go through ALL POSSIBLE PERMUTATIONS. We are not going to see even ONE instance of the sorting behavior? That's what you contend?
Yes, lets do it the hard way!You didn't answer my question. Will an simulation which uses a PRNG which is guaranteed to go through every permutation at some point model this sorting behavior?
Two thermal noise devices will always return a different resultWhat you want to say is that given a sufficient number of trials they will return the same result once in the total number of permutations between the two RNGs. i.e. If you have a eight bit RNGs you will get the same result 1 in 65536 times. :)
Sarkeizen'So again I don't see how a prism is relevant.'You already said it can't sort like a computer right? :) or did you? I'm losing track. Please clarify. :)
if a prism can
You didn't answer my question. Will an simulation which uses a PRNG which is guaranteed to go through every permutation at some point model this sorting behavior?
While you're thinking about that let's get back to you masturbating over thermal noise RNGs.What you want to say is that given a sufficient number of trials they will return the same result once in the total number of permutations between the two RNGs. i.e. If you have a eight bit RNGs you will get the same result 1 in 65536 times. :)
That's assuming no bias and most thermal RNGs do have a little bias. :)
Mr sarkeizen I'm going to get angry nowLook was it unclear to you that we were talking about something that worked like a computer? Even when you said: "just like a computer"?
The Pseudo Random Number Generator can simulate the results but not the sorting behaviorSo even when we go through ALL POSSIBLE OUTCOMES of molecular movement in your "environment" - not one of those is sorted? :)
Mr sarkeizen. A QUENCO SORTS INSTANTLY>> HOT/COLDBut according to you a Quenco can sort arbitrarily large data sets and a prism can't right?
So even when we go through ALL POSSIBLE OUTCOMES of molecular movement in your "environment" - not one of those is sorted? :)
Sarkeizen'But according to you a Quenco can sort arbitrarilySo you were wrong when I asked if it can sort the words from a play and you said: "nononononono"
large data sets and a prism can't right?'
Both can sort billions of particle-waves instantly according their energy-status
Nothing is sortedYou haven't answered the question. Are you saying that when you cycle through all the possible positions for the molecules. At no time during that process is the outcome sorted?
we didn't programme quenco to do that shakesperian.I don't speak troll. I asked you if the Quenco can sort arbitrarily large data and you said yes. Now you seem to be saying it can't sort the words from a play. Which is it?
Lol it'l sort only ALL of the words >hot and >cold from that play and put them in two groups.I don't speak troll. So can it sort them alphabetically?
No only wordly.recognizes only 2 wordsI don't know what "worldly" means. Again post in English, not Troll.
Because your an idiot.I don't speak troll.
wordly means it recognizes all the words,hot and all the words cold.and segregates themWhat does that mean? If I put in:
Look in thy glass and tell the face thou viewest,What is the output. :)
Now is the time that face should form another,
Sarkeizen:'what does that mean? 'Awww you realized you are wrong and are backtracking. One more point for me.
It means I'm playing you for a fool :)
But seriously now, the quenco is programmed to sort fast electrons from not-so-fast electrons.it will only reconize this and this alone and segregate this and this alone.So it can't be used to sort words? It is impossible to use it in this way. :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
It can be used to sort anything you want it to sort but only if you use many quencos and arranged on a electronics board with additional electronics.Ok so when you do this will it sort words instantaneously?
.philip meant electrons if he said moleculesNope. Molecules. Remember we're talking about Philips fictional device. Not yours. Start another thread for your fantasies. :)
You haven't answered the question. Are you saying that when you cycle through all the possible positions for the molecules. At no time during that process is the outcome sorted?
That actually means that the quenco doesn't work but maybe you can clarify if you stop speaking troll for a second. :)
You are simply trying to find an angle to apply your type of failure to a condition that does not fail.I don't speak troll - so I have no idea what that means. I generally use clear unambiguous terms and I don't shy away from clarifying them when asked. The reason for this, I think is that I know what I'm talking about. The reason you need to dance around and not answer my clear and direct question is probably because you do not.
I don't speak troll - so I have no idea what that means. I generally use clear unambiguous terms and I don't shy away from clarifying them when asked. The reason for this, I think is that I know what I'm talking about. The reason you need to dance around and not answer my clear and direct question is probably because you do not.
Let's try this another way....and lets watch you avoid the question.
Are you saying if I used a computer with a thermal noise RNG I could model the quenco in a way which would result sorted molecules. :)
No it will not instantlyYawn. More dancing. So what will the performance be? :)
particles yesMolecules. Go ahead and read the thread.
Why would I avoid that question?Glad you admit that you've been avoiding the other questions. :)
The RNG could easily be used to model a Quenco device because the RNG in nearly a quenco already.So let me get this straight. You believe that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a PRNG in a computer to simulate a quenco but if you replace the PRNG with a thermal-noise RNG it can. Yet for any arbitrarily long run of a thermal-noise RNG there exists a PRNG which produces the same output.
It lacks only the environment which could be simulated in the computer.
Well sir it will be a damn good performance? :)So before you were able to give the performance of a quenco down to quadrillenths of a second. Now you can't?
Glad you admit that you've been avoiding the other questions. :)So let me get this straight. You believe that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a PRNG in a computer to simulate a quenco but if you replace the PRNG with a thermal-noise RNG it can. Yet for any arbitrarily long run of a thermal-noise RNG there exists a PRNG which produces the same output.
Hence your desire to fetishize thermal-noise RNGs aside. They are not necessary to simulate a quenco. QED.
I wasn't avoiding any questionsYou were asked: Do you think you can simulate this random crashing and sorting of a quenco on a computer?
No, a computer cannot simulate random.You were asked: So even if I have a PRNG which is guaranteed to go through ALL POSSIBLE PERMUTATIONS. We are not going to see even ONE instance of the sorting behavior of a quenco? That's what you contend?
The fact is the RNG or the PRNG would sufficeNow all of a sudden it doesn't matter.
but what I was pointing to was the simulation of the environment and the acceptance of the RNG or white noise generator as operating similar to a quenco.So as this was not the question asked. Is this you admitting you were avoiding answering the question? Seems like it.
The computer can simulate,Was that so hard? So the computer can sort like a quenco. Is the outcome deterministic? If I put in the same set of values encoded onto the bouncing molecules do I get the same set of outputs?
A multiquenco brain is going to slow down the more algorythms it does.I don't speak troll. You're going to have to write that in English. :)
Shove alota quencos togetherWhat does this give you in terms of the ability to operate on data of a specific size?
assymetricly an they slow down.Troll speak. English please.
You mean re-interpret it for idiots yes :)Nope. You've gone from saying a quenco - singular sorts just like a computer. handles data of arbitrary size and processes instantaneously. To something that doesn't.
Same as a computerCan I interpret this in a non-Troll sense of the term.
IS A TWO-BIT SORTER A COMPUTER or notI don't know what that is because I don't speak troll. If you could rephrase in a way that was clear and not...well...stupid. I'd appreciate it. :)
so far you gave us no reason why phillip's device should not be able to sort hot from coldActually again the BBBV likely applies to Philip's machine. :)
wheras I've given a good few reasons why it shouldNope. You haven't even defined what the device is capable of hence it is impossible for you to have provided reasons for it not to be under the BBBV. :)
You haven't even defined what the device is capable of hence it is impossible for you to have provided reasons for it not to be under the BBBV.
I have I have too :)Sorry then you should be able to say....
a prism violates bbbv theorem.Nope. You have not told me...
instantaneous sorting greater than 01 is strictly banned for quantum bbbv.Please write this in English. This is troll (or gibberish they're very similar). :)
Sarkeizen:'Again this is perhaps a difference between academia and where you live...let's call it "loserville" ok? See here, if I write a paper I have to actually KNOW what I'm talking about. I need to express my ideas clearly and make arguments that are very compelling (to non-loserville people). I can't just say "The flrogslishever computer-spillover hydro-valve means P=NP". Which seems like something you could pass off in loserville. :)'LOL, if you think that anything you have proposed supports PJH's claims then you are a very badly deluded individual.
Sorry I'm an electrochemist not a computition.so far you gave us no reason why phillip's device should not be able to sort hot from cold wheras I've given a good few reasons why it should
The only real problem with a theorem is that because it does constitute absolute mathematical proof, it tends to prevent progress when used as such a proof.Theorems are like anything else in mathematics: They can be misapplied and then what one gets is GIGO. There have always been a subset of engineering students who do really well in math but have great difficulty applying the correct math when solving an engineering problem.
In the scope of the theorem it will always be correct and can define a limit but the theorem cannot define the scope so the actual limit may not exist.
Example: Fusion requires a minimum energy level to occur, but yet we have cold fusion.
Example: Fusion requires a minimum energy level to occurThis isn't really an example of what we are talking about here. I'd suggest you read Popper's "logic of scientific discovery". Models have an inductive problem. If you observe some series of events that occurs at a rate of y=x^2 for n observations. How many observations are required before you can assume the relationship holds for all possible values of X?
, but yet we have cold fusion.Not really.
Mark E'LOL, if you think that anything you have proposedBear in mind that a work function defines the energy required to separate an electron from a metal atom into an immediately adjacent vacuum. Bear in mind that given an open external circuit, charge does not pile up on one or both electrodes. Bear in mind that current through a vacuum tube diode flows only when an external power source is connected in the diode circuit loop.
supports PJH's claims then you are a very badly
deluded individual.'
Well let's think about this indepth mr E.I take two different metals and shove them in contact under vaccuum.naturaly we get a irreversable evening out of charge after seperation.now we do the same cycle but with a grid infront of one piece.the question boils down to this: how would the grid affect the whole equilibria statisticly.bear inmind that electrons behave as particles and waves
Sarkeizen:'Now using thisDo you get massively stoned before you post? Because what you post makes it look a lot like you do.
information and English. Please state what you are
trying to express. :)'
Right first of all we need to know what you want to know.YOU want to know how small information can be turned into large work.a ipod computer turns large work into small information.the chaos at the powerstation increases more than the order in your ipod but you want the chaos in your ipod to create more order in the powerstation.easy to do,you jingle the info of your ipod instead of throw coal at the powerstation,you do the reverse. You make a system that can jingle the info TO manipulate the fuel.in any realife demon the best that can be done is to do this at the SAME TIME.this is where uncertainty principal begins to fuck with the known laws of physics and you get a virtual switching between the fuel and the ipod in competition with each other who's gonna be the first CAUSATION and who's gonna be the EFFECT.you can only do this with an assymetric arrangement between the quantum world and kinetic world.
Mark E'Do you get massively stoned before you post?Is that a yes? It looks like a yes.
Because what you post makes it look a lot like you do.'
You've never ever in your life heard of a reversable system? Capacitor charge><capacitor discharge/ energy arranging your data><your data arranging energy
Mark E'is that a yes? It looks like a yes.'As your responses wander seemingly uncontrollably the yes is implicit.
No it doesn't look like you've heard of a reversable process before.mr sarkeizen wants to know how to convert small info into large energy mr E,ask him.
Now using this information and English. Please state what you are trying to express. :)
Right first of all we need to know what you want to know.Not really. You claimed that BBBV said....something...I don't know what because I don't speak Troll. So I gave you as short a statement on it as I could. I could say more i.e. By being able to determine the complexity class of an oracle problem we are able to bound the speed given by quantum effects. You could always just read the paper to get more. In any case I then turned it over to you to REPHRASE the word-salad you posted into something that made some kind of sense.
YOU want to know how small information can be turned into large work.Nope. I want to know/...
Let me get this straight.you want to discuss somebody's information theoryThis is what this ENTIRE conversation was about troll-boy. I said that complexity theory had something to say about the Quenco.
instead of discussing how information can manipulate disproportionate energy?Instead of discussing made up troll-speak. Absolutely. :)
We have to know how a computer works if we are to involve complexity theoryNope. That's the absolute opposite of how complexity classes work. :) You don't have to know anything about the implementation details. In this case we are restricting ALL cases better than O(n^1/2) so all you need to know is the way data is encoded, decoded, if the output is deterministic and how performance scales with input size to show that Philip's machine can't work.
this is how bbbv worksNot according to the paper. Please stop bullshitting and answer the question or admit you are out of your depth. :)
Quenco is a quantum switchAll I see in Philips documents are molecules. No switches. It separates hot molecules from ones that aren't hot. The input is some molecules of some ambient temperature.
There is a switch in every such device.if its not in the diagram you will see it in real lifeThere are no real-life quencos. The alleged devices he fabricated had no switch. His quartz system had no switch. Philip never mentioned a switch. Philip's device has no switch. You are as usual bullshitting. :)
Sadly it seems like your copping out of your own argumentYawn. Dude if you want to fight about some stupid bullshit you made up when wiping your ass one day. I'll gladly do that. Just make a new thread for it. This thread is for fighting about the stupid moronic bullshit Philip made up. Which has no quantum switches, nor appears to have any switches of any kind in any place or mention.
dude you were doing just fine until we got to the most common thing found on all electrical power sources,the switch.you wimped out its obviousAs I've said. You want to make a new thread and fight there. Absolutely utterly and perfectly fine with me. You won't because you're beat. But here since were dealing with Philips bullshit - we discuss it. Which, through no fault of mine - has no switch. Maybe you can convince Philip to come back and say his device NEEDS a switch but until then this is just you bullshitting your way through an argument. Hoping and praying you can find some way to stall. :)
me adding a simpleton on/off switch to the quencoThanks for admitting it doesn't have one. :) :) :) :) :)
His device IS a godamn switch.It appears to be something that sorts hot molecules from not hot ones. According to him it continuously creates power until the molecules reach their minimum temp. However the temperature of the room and the myriad of heat sources makes that hard. Anyway there are no switches necessary. However it's interesting that your argument falls flat unless there's a switch. That's the reason you're trying so hard to squeeze your own bullshit in here. Seriously do you really think people don't see that? Fucking moron
Mr sarkeizen there will still be excess energy with a switch addedSo it doesn't have one. Which makes this irrelevant to this discussion. Thanks for admitting it again. It's kind of interesting how you are so incredibly used to lying to people that you slip smoothly from "it has a switch" to "it would be easier to understand if it had a switch" - perhaps you need to talk to a therapist about this.
Nonono mr sarkeizen rename that thread to something less offensive.I'm thick-skinned but not an idiot.do it quickly before edit expires
Erase the first 4 words of it then I'l go there.Edit timeout. Guess you'll have to go with that...or just make your own thread. :) Should I give you instructions?
quit being childish el nineoUh haven't you lied multiple times, aren't you almost constantly involved in some scheme to avoid discussing the topic at hand? The answer there is yes - and is easily demonstrated. :)
So I take it you concede here because apparently you can't argue your case without switches. :)
The otherway round.your conceding because of something your afraid of regarding a simpleton switch.Uh...so according to Profitis logic if I'm afraid of something I actively invite discussion on it and you *aren't* afraid as you are actively avoiding discussion on....well...too many topics to list. Perhaps you need to look some words up in a dictionary.
we're not stupidThere is little evidence to support that assertion. :)
deal with the switchAbsolutely - just not in a thread about Quenco which has no switches and if you ask Philip it's not a demon either. He actively denied this in prior postings. All Philip described was something which produced electricity by sorting out hot molecules from cooler ones.
Mr sarkeizen your whole friggn argument is that an arrangement of switching (bbbv)Nope. That's not my argument. BBBV has nothing to do with installing a power switch on something. Philip says that the quenco sorts (without a switch). You say the quenco sorts without a switch. My argument is about the sorting behavior. Hence switches = you being a bullshitter. :)
bbbv has everything to do with switch ARRANGEMENTS.Nope. Switches are entirely unnecessary to the proof. The word "switch" is not even mentioned in the entire paper but you never read it so why would you know that?
infact it has so much to do with switches that it's main use is for computer-design and programming.Nope. But if you're right then it should be easy to show me a program that clearly implements the BBBV or a computer design which directly references the BBBV in it's documentation.
BBBV which requires no switches
Algorithm theorems are theorems(non-3dimensional)that require SWITCHES for 3-dimensional(real) implementation.Troll-speak. I have no idea what that means. Seriously just use English. Why do you spend so much effort to sound stupid?
(I'm going to smoke a cigarette and have coffee now while we wait for mr sarkeizen to make his mind up about switches and switch-theorem)Don't take any stupid pills. Your past-posts indicate that they don't help.
On paper.we're not interested in paper,we're interested in how bbbv is implemented in everyday lifeI have trouble even imagining someone or even an object as utterly stupid as you seem to be. I'm almost positive that a houseplant would respond more intelligently than you. So forgive me but I'm going to go slowly here. As I have no idea how far your stupid goes
Sorry,not interested.only interested in implementationImplementation of what? :)
I took a multi-vit today.Well that proves you're gullible. :)
Of your weapon of choice,algorithms.My argument is about the BBBV mr-i-am-so-naive-i-take-multi-vitamins. :)
Our argument is about implementation of bbbvBBBV isn't an algorithm. :) It's a proof. You don't understand the difference...do you? LOL!
Whatever it is we wana know how its implementedI need you to define what "implemented" means when talking about a proof. :) Show me the implementation of another purely mathematical proof. :)
I doubt youre going to tell usI'd be happy to, if I had any idea what that means. Sadly, what you are talking about doesn't really exist. :)
I must admit I've been slack much of the latter part of the thread but beware now mr sarkeizen I'm ready to pounceWell I hope you do something...for the past year or so all you do is delay, bullshit and posture.
Uhmmm no I'l stick with algorithms and their direct implementation in the real worldi) My argument is about the BBBV.
Huh? Algorithm proofs have absolutely nothing to do with switches on the inside of a computer?becareful how you answer thisWhat is an "algorithm proof". The BBBV is a proof. It's not an algorithm. :)
if you did how could it apply to philip's machine and at the same time insist that it must remain seperate from machines?I have no idea what you wrote means. Is there a reason you speak Troll so much?
Sarkeizen:'How data is encoded....no answer from profitis here.I'm asserting that the BBBV restricts the creation of a machine like the Philip Hardcastle quenco. You appear to be arguing that it does not. That's what is meant by the "BBBV applies"
How the sorted output is read...no answer from profitis here
How the performance scales with input size...one answer based on a prior machine but his new made-up machine we have no output.
I'll add the question: "Is the output deterministic?" to the list.
So no, nothing remotely approaching a definition that would say if the BBBV applies or not.'
What did you mean by the word 'applies'?
How can it restrict the creation of a machine if it has nothing to do with machinesYou need to explain to me what "nothing to do with" means in that context. :)
(Now I'm going to have that coffee while mr sarkeizen tries to get out his knot)Don't pop any more vitamins. They seem to make you less smart. :)
How can a theorem restrict a machines performanceThe BBBV restricts the ability to create a machine using quantum effects which has a complexity class of O(1) (for sorting) because the BBBV states that the greatest improvement you can get from quantum effects is O(X^1/2).
and at the same time insist that you meant the above in a different contextPlease rephrase in English. I don't know what you're referring to as "a different context".
If it takes being dumb to get you into such easy corners give me more :)ROFL!
Will you allow me to attatch a switch to the quencoSure...in a separate thread about Profitis shitty switched quenco - or some other name. This thread however is about quenco. Quenco sorts, it appears to sort in O(1). Hence it can not function by BBBV.
..And mr sarkeizen backs out again.puk-puk-puuuuk (feathers fly allover the place :) ).chickenshit mr sarkeizenAwww, it's so cute when you think you can bully people. It's also slightly disturbing that you generally think bullying is an acceptable thing to do. That said if you were some kind of worthwhile human being you probably wouldn't bullshit and lie so much. :) But I guess you self-justify these things in some (very stupid) way. :)
Where did I admit such a thing don't be ridiculousHey English. Congratulations. Now try to stop speaking troll! :) :)
imagine profitis not wanting to talk about quenco.About Philip Hardcastles quenco. Because you said it doesn't have a switch and you refuse to carry on your argument without a switch. QED.
.g g giggle :)..wooooo mr sarkeizen's in such a fucking tight corner snicker snicker :DDoesn't seem like it. As...
Sarkeizen:'How can you add a switch to something that already possesses one?'Then you are still giving it something it does not possess. Hence the thing you are wanting to discuss is not the thing I was talking about when I began this discussion. I'm happy to discuss this idea of yours but you need to create a thread for it.
Easy,you add another one
You lost.
Not by miles no ways.Yawn. Another Profitis game of trying to bullshit his way through. Look like it or not you can't provide an argument based on what I originally said. I mean that's the absolute truth right. If you could we would be discussing that right now. Instead you're stuck trying to bullshit.
you only have pages of begging me to let you add a switch. :)
Which you for some reason will absolutely not allow.This is 100% wrong. I completely allow it in another thread in fact I have a deep and burning desire to talk about it in another thread but it's simply not part of Philips Quenco so it seems reasonable to put it in another thread. You were happy to talk about your Pile-of-shit idea in another thread. Hence this should pose no problem for you.
to the point of even throwing tantrums about itIs calmly telling you to put your shitty idea in another thread is a "tantrum" in Profitis land? Or is this you just bullshitting again.
Well according to you all claimed demons are a shit-for-brains-ideaActually I think all the free-energy, vaccine denying, conspiracy mongering ideas discussed on OU are the shittiest shit that shit could shit if shit shat shit but that doesn't mean I want to have to read them all in one thread.
and since demons are pretty much what this whole threads is aboutActually Phillip said the opposite. So you've given another good reason for your "I will lose this argument if I can't add a switch" ideas to be separate. :) Thanks!
the original quenco will be using a switch in realifeIf you want to discuss switches. I am absolutely eager to. Just not here. I even made a thread for you. :)
I can't move my argument forward without adding a switchFair enough. :)
Where do you think there was a switch in the Quenco?I think it's pretty obvious why Profitis is masturbating over a switch. :)
you can't move your argument forward without adding a switch
I can.Then do so. Just like Philip described it. See, no problem. No need for your bullshit theatrics. :)
but first tell me something.what kind of event is a 0,1/2 event that you were talking about earlierCan you point me to where I was talking about an event?
Here.you wrote this:O(X^1/2).what does this meanUhm...you posted several times about O notation acting as if you knew what you were saying. Doesn't that mean you were bullshitting?
thus bbbv isnot violated because of heisenberg uncertainty where we can be technicly oo and o1 at same timeYawn. I've already addressed this, there's no dependency on implementation. All the proof is concerned with is how you put the data in, how you read the data out, the way it scales with data size and if the outcome is deterministic. Everything else is irrelevant.
Big mistake gunzo.you already described how bbbv should implementationarily ban a 01 from quenco.Please cite where specifically I say that the BBBV depends on some aspect of implementation.
You said that some aspect of implementation is banned by bbbv.Please cite specifically where I said that some aspect of implementation is restricted by BBBV.
Let me tell you what is many miles more important.More important than you retreating from your own argument?
More important than you retreating from your own argument?
YesGlad you agree. I guess you realize that you made a mistake.
at the same timeQuantum computers provably take time process things. Hence this is untrue.
Not this computerSorry. If it computes it takes time. You can keep retreating if you like. Perhaps to a position that this can't perform computations. :-)
It takes 3seconds yes.So what you said was wrong. Thanks again.
"but the 3seconds"Which takes 3 seconds. So you're wrong. :-)
Which takes 3 seconds. So you're wrong. :-)
YesQED.
Which takes 3 seconds. So you're wrong. :-)
YesQED
Which as you say takes 3 seconds. So you're wrong. :-)
YesQED
In your home computer instantly takes 3 seconds.Three seconds takes three seconds on my home computer. So again, you're wrong. :-)
In your home computer instantly takes 3 seconds.Three seconds takes three seconds on my home computer. So again, you're wrong. :-)
In your home computer instantly takes 3 seconds.Three seconds takes three seconds on my home computer. So again, you're wrong. :-)
In your home computer instantly takes 3 seconds.Three seconds takes three seconds on my home computer. So again, you're wrong. :-)
Which as you say takes 3 seconds. So you're wrong. :-)
YesQED
Which as you say takes 3 seconds. So you're wrong. :-)
YesQED
Which as you say takes 3 seconds. So you're wrong. :-)
YesQED