Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

2nd "law" violations => Heat to electric energy conversion => Topic started by: Philip Hardcastle on April 04, 2012, 11:00:30 AM

Title: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on April 04, 2012, 11:00:30 AM

 :) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'( ;D

For those interested, following my success in isothermal heat to power conversion at 500C (the sebithenco device) I have now progressed to a solid state technology just a few nm thick and 1,000,000,000x more powerful, and at room temperature to boot.


 www.quentron.com
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on April 05, 2012, 10:56:17 PM
Previously we had expected to make a public announcement in early May 2012, however we have revised our plans and now have scheduled to make available a full press release on June 11 (2012), to the extent that we can, without harming IP rights, we will also publish certificates, lab reports and video of operating devices. Obviously until patents are issued we are restricted on what we can divulge re the detail of the device but we expect full details to be available before the launch of the eternal battery product (once the battery is available we see that keeping secrets will be futile as the device can be STM probed).


A few people have contacted me re distribution of the 1.2V eternal hearing aid battery product we will be releasing in the 2nd half of 2012, we advise that at this stage we have no plans to sell the batteries other than via our own e-commerce site, however for larger power units (not planned for commercial release before 2013) we will be interested to hear from interested parties following the press release in June.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on April 07, 2012, 04:36:05 AM
I have received a few questions as to why hearing aid batteries, why not something bigger?


The answer is that the simplest first product to make is a quenco with virtually no complexity and immediately usable, with about 50million hearing aids being used in the World there is clearly a need for an eternal cell, the cost of people buying the disposable batteries comes to far more than $100 a year if the aid is used frequently / continuously, so $100 for an eternal battery is economical and practical (no more having the aid stop working for a flat battery).


If we assume that 1 in 10 decide to use a quenco cell then that is $500 million of sales which can then be pumped back in to more powerful products. Additional sales of cells are also anticipated simply as you could buy them for any application you want, and it may be that sales of cells for alternate use might exceed hearing aid use 10:1. Overall as a simple means into the market and a demonstration device a hearing aid battery is a reasonable choice.


Also I do not plan to personally make quenco much beyond the first year, I envisage the advancement of the fundamental technology to be done by many organisations (or individuals), so I do not wish to set up a complex production facility, it would be fun to do many things but it would be silly to even try to do it all myself.


So for those that think I should make a unit to power a house I think they need to understand that large scale quenco devices will need highly specialised production equipment known as roll to roll ALD, furthermore a lot of engineering is required to go from an enabling technology to commercial product and that necessarily involves teams of people and man years of work.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on April 07, 2012, 09:09:54 AM
Reminds me of this article:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/mar/08/graphene-in-new-battery-breakthrough

And as you say once your product hits the market it won't take long before it's reversed engineered and sold probably MUCH cheaper especially in China where IP is nearly non existent so I see why you're asking price for a single cell is so high, cash in while the exclusivity lasts eey.
Well I wish you luck and I hope we'll be seeing these cells in all our devices soon.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on April 08, 2012, 05:17:33 PM
Thanks Broli,


I agree that the price will plummet (whether from pirating or scale) and the power output will increase dramatically in year 2, that is what I wish for. I can only hope that China will adopt quenco for utility scale power generation as soon a possible, even if I get no monetary return. We need to have significant reduction in coal power generation in China and other countries if we are going to have any chance of avoiding cataclysmic global warming.


Being 100% genuine about all this, the money from the eternal cells will simply be insurance so that if governments fail to engage with me for the common good then I can make sure that quenco can be developed for the people, ie I can use the money from battery sales to set up large scale production to sell as cheaply as possible large quenco for home power and such.


What would be ideal is for me to step aside asap and let those capable of doing production on a war time scale take it over, even if I get only 0.01% of what the IP is worth, after all how much money can a rational person want for their own personal use? With the launch in June and all the certificates from govt recognized bodies attached, I hope that I can sit down with scientific and government bodies / organisations with a view to mass production in all countries as an urgent agenda.


I have been asked by email a few times now to give details re the quenco but I will not do so until after all the full patents are filed, all the lab work is finished and written up, and certainly not prior to the launch in June, what I am willing to divulge is that quenco is simple and that almost any company of modest size could tool up to make it. I estimate in mass production quenco film (using roll to roll ALD) will be less than a cent per Watt, and I hope we can drive it down to 0.1c /W.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on April 08, 2012, 05:47:32 PM
Best of luck with this.  It sounds like a great solution.  Just make sure you have a backup to a backup plan to make sure your info is not lost since any announcement that can have major economic impact on big companies has the potential to garner attention of the dark forces.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on April 09, 2012, 09:39:13 AM
Hi e2,


Thanks for the good luck wish.


I do not personally buy into the oft rumoured dark forces but as it happens I have taken quite a few precautions to cover the possibility of being run over by a bus. There are no less than 6 scientists, 2 engineers, and 3 major companies in possession of technical documents relating to the quenco, There are also a few close friends that hold a number of signed and dated documents for quenco as IP protection. All these individuals, companies and universities are bound by commercial in confidence and NDA agreements, or by trust, but if I did drop dead it would only be a matter of weeks before there would be some reaction so there is zero chance of the info being lost.


****Just in case there really really really are dark forces reading this then they should consider that bumping me off will not suppress quenco, it might even make some sceptics pay more attention and thus accelerate the process***


If the dark forces want to target someone please contact me through the quentron website contact page and I can provide the names of some particular obnoxious and stupid sceptics who post on the moletrap, hardly three brain cell between the lot of them.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on April 10, 2012, 01:19:20 AM
You'll laugh at this.


Following my joke above about the dark forces, the loud mouth obnoxious sceptics banned me! They say they felt threatened, funny as any time any member of this forum or other mentions dark forces the moletrap morons say it is evidence of madness and paranoia, so it seems that left to fester on their own they have inbred into their own form of fetid madness.


The only reason I mention sceptics is because in my view there are useful sceptics, those that challenge ideas and debate topics, and then there are those old men that never did anything useful in their life who want to knock and put down everyone else who tries. I have proved a device and had that proof independently replicated but people like them (the sceptics that do not care to think or listen) do not even falter in their bitter name calling. It matters not of course as I will show on June 11 but I just want to share my experience to encourage all inventors not to let idiots get under your skin or halt your work. We all need to work together to save our planet from global warming and I hope members of Overunity will take my device and not only replicate it but accelerate the use, and breadth of use of it.


I do however apologize to anyone that took my suggestion for dark forces to contact me seriously, I do not have any malice to anyone, even those that call me horrid names, whatever their motivation. Life really is too short to let negative and bitter people spoil it.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Freeestenergie on April 10, 2012, 01:42:50 AM
Sounds exciting, but your version that is 1,000,000 x better, what is the measured energy, or is it calculated?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on April 11, 2012, 07:38:57 AM
@freeestenergie


Your first post and you choose only me, it makes me think you are a moletrap member just posting here out of malice?


In any case your question is wrong, loaded and silly.


Firstly if you read the first post here (above) it says 1,000,000,000 not 1,000,000, why I stated the larger number will make sense when you read on, however the actual improvement over sebithenco and the proof of concept tests remain confidential for an exact calculation might provide information to allow reverse engineering.


Secondly Quenco does not create energy, it converts energy. The energy it converts is the heat it is supplied and more specifically it extracts kinetic energy from hot tail energy electrons converting that energy into an electrical potential. IE If you only supply a Joule of heat you can only extract a Watt, at least at a point of equilibrium. So the device does not create energy and I have never claimed that it did.


Third it is almost impossible to answer even if I was prepared to ignore the Second point, the website already explains that the device is limited by the ability to get heat into it, so the question would need to very much more detailed than you have posed but in any case you can do the math yourself on 11 June 2012.


Fourth if you read above you will see that I am not releasing any technical data until after all IP protection, lab notes and such are prepared for publication, signed, witnessed and distributed to important parties.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: markdansie on April 11, 2012, 08:23:40 AM
The graphene battery article you refer to is interesting. Others have had trouble replicating it. However it lends itself to solid state production using other materials that also the necessary  ion collisions with the Graphene.
Philip's device I suspect would improve with surface area hence moving to thin film (ALD) techniques. Using the correct architecture you can put  a house block in surface area in a cm cube. It is also possible to print down to 20 nanometres thick film using litho techniques.
Kind Regards
Mark Dansie
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Qwert on April 11, 2012, 10:13:30 AM

Heat into electrcity-parametric oscillator. Is it this technology?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Freeestenergie on April 11, 2012, 10:25:45 AM
@freeestenergie


Your first post and you choose only me, it makes me think you are a moletrap member just posting here out of malice?



I read the moletrap mostly - not everyone who posts is made welcome  :( - and follow here from there. I am not "black ops" or anything, and not malicious (I think). 1,000,000,000 is a very large number, so it seems unlikely as a jump, so I've asked, nothing more, it doesn't seem silly to me.

I don't think I will trust myself to calculate so I'll just wait but things usually take longer than we plan.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on April 11, 2012, 10:26:42 AM
@Mark, Hi, to avoid confusion on this thread it was Broli that referred to the graphene article, quenco has absolutely nothing to do with that reported device. Also Quenco is much thinner than 20nm and fabrication relies on Atomic Layer Deposition fabrication and so the used units are Angstroms (1E-10).


I can say (without giving away any trade secrets) that for a 1.5v quenco chip of say 20um thickness the vast majority of that thickness is the end contact substrate, in other words we could supply them (1.5v quenco) at less than 20nm thickness, but how would you handle them?



Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on April 11, 2012, 10:52:12 AM
@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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Freeestenergie on April 11, 2012, 11:33:26 AM
@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

Ha, no need, many worse things have been said, and with no prompt. Good luck!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on April 12, 2012, 04:44:00 PM
I received a few question about what are my plans, other than hearing aid batteries.


The simple answer is I do not know, I would like the technology to belong to everyone.


For all the years of effort I would like to get a fair but modest financial return.


I thought of asking governments if they would pay me a small fee so that the rights to use the technology would belong to every citizen.


My crude idea is to ask the USA government if it wanted to buy the rights by paying me a dime per head of population, then everyone in the USA would be granted the right to make and sell quenco without paying any further fee.


I know this is a strange idea but I thought it was better than me accepting offers from multinationals who would then make everyone pay a high amount to get the benefits of the technology. If everyone had the right to build quenco then competition would be high and roll out rapid. This is the best scenario to halt CO2 emissions, I think.


If anyone has an idea on how a technology should be rolled out please post here.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lancaIV on April 13, 2012, 08:50:25 PM
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on April 14, 2012, 01:59:34 AM
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, Nothing like that, quenco converts ambient heat, not photons.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: aaron5120 on April 14, 2012, 04:15:08 PM
Sir,
Please consider the following option:
www.kickstarter.com
It is the world's largest funding platform for creative projects. You may submit your project to the consideration of the whole world, and get funded in a few months for beginning to beta trial production of your invention. If the idea is attractive enough to the internet public, they are well prepared to over-fund your project by several orders of magnitude( like many projects did in the past there).
Please have a look of some of the most notoriously successful projects in the site.
http://www.kickstarter.com/discover/categories/technology/most-funded
I will be one of them to fund your project, should you post your invention there.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: DreamThinkBuild on April 14, 2012, 04:33:14 PM
Hi Philip,

I agree with Aaron, KickStarter may be a viable route to take. For something as helpful as hearing aid batteries I would pitch in. My sister needs batteries all the time and they are expensive. $30-$40 for six batteries and insurance doesn't cover them. Your technology would do lots of good.

Here is an example of a project:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1203647021/the-powerpot
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lancaIV on April 14, 2012, 08:50:14 PM
Okay Mr. Hardcastle, I thank you for the fast response !
No photons based but ambient heat .
Phonons,thermal noise ?

Sincerely
                 CdL
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hartiberlin on April 15, 2012, 02:45:05 AM
Never try to get in touch with anyone from the USA government.

Politicians don´t want to give up their power
over the people, so these are the wrong and worst people to contact.

You would either land in jail or your ideas would be
stolen or closed away...

Yes, better use Kickstarter or just build enough samples yourself and
sell them at one time, so if a few hundreds are already out there
they can´t kill it anymore...

You can also sell books or plans about it on ebay for example, how to build them..
This would be the easiest thing... if it could be done homemade...

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on April 15, 2012, 04:11:53 AM
Thanks Aaron and Dream for your idea about kickstarter.


@ Cdl, I did say  a few posts ago that I would not answer further questions, I will respond to your question by saying not strictly speaking phonons.


@ Stephan, thanks for your advice. I must say it seems a common view that government is the last place one should seek a partnership with which seems to be at odds with the view that the government is for the people, perhaps ego, power and greed are the darker forces that exist even among people of good intentions.


My view is that I have a moral obligation to make sure it becomes public property as soon as possible but I also have a right to make some profit to compensate me for my efforts and foregone earnings. I considered the kickstarter idea as a means of getting attention but I cannot bring myself to ask for funding when I have my own funds (I am selling 2 properties to fund a small factory). I am not looking for a handout from anyone.


What I would ask is that those that read my posts simply tell 10 others to pay attention and to ask 10 of their friends to do the same.


www.quentron.com (http://www.quentron.com)



Thanks for your help and encouragement.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on April 15, 2012, 03:05:50 PM
Hi All,


Further to my last post, please spread the word that the launch date is 11 June 2012 and on that day I will post as much proof of the device as I can that will not affect IP rights, this should include independent reports, data and video.


Unlike Rossi and Steorn I will provide clear and unambiguous proof of a working device.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on April 21, 2012, 11:27:36 AM
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on April 21, 2012, 12:18:44 PM
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

I would say stick to the iPhone as that's what the sheeple are most fond of. But the iPhone's battery is internal so it would be hard for the average joe and jane to replace it even though it's really simple. Since you're not that interested in production but rather licensing.
Then if you want to get KNOWN and fast send a working cell for an iPhone 4s to www.engadget.com (http://www.engadget.com) and tell them to use it and review it. But just be prepared for the mountain of attention you'll get, and make sure it doesn't kill you :p. These blogs have millions of tech savy followers who'll make it go viral, it would be much more effective than sending it to the companies doorstep and hoping for the best.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on April 22, 2012, 12:52:56 PM
Hi Broli,

Your idea is actually quite brilliant.

I consulted a few people and they agree that the following of people on engadget is massive and that it would do more to prove quenco to the World in a week than probably any other strategy.

I suppose the issue is to get the right people at engadget to talk with me and for them to agree to doing the tests, any chance a reader here has an inside to engadget people and would get them to give me a call??
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on April 22, 2012, 01:22:33 PM
Hi Everyone,

I have posted on www.quentron.com a page about an offer from Dick Smith to include quenco in his million dollar prize offer that he first made to LENR.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hartiberlin on April 22, 2012, 01:55:00 PM
Sounds good.
Maybe you could at least post a picture of your device instead of the cute Koala bear ?

This would probably not make your patent void but would make it more believable..

How big is your 1.2 Volt device ? Does it fit in a hearing aid device and
how much current does it deliver approximately constantly if the room temperatur
is at about 22 to 25 degrees Celsius ?

Can you already tell these parameters ?


Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.

P.S: Putting several in series and parallel to get an "indefinite" Iphone battery
is a good idea and would really make headlines... if you could deliver it to
an online tech magazine for them to test...!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on April 22, 2012, 07:44:04 PM
Before contacting engadget you should at least have a working iPhone battery. There's enough people you can contact at engadget, here's a list http://www.engadget.com/about. You can disclose it as some early technological prototype than you wish to give engadget as an exclusive to report on.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on April 23, 2012, 06:30:47 AM
I have deleted the million dollar prize page on the website.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mscoffman on April 23, 2012, 08:19:35 PM
Philip;
 
(a) Do you have any ideas about what the scientific laws
that will replace the Carnot's perfect gas cycle engine
and refrigerator thermodynamic laws will look like once
your device has been proven to work? I mean this
question with the utmost respect to you and your
invention.
 
It seems to me that if either the heat engine or the heat
refrigerator in a Carnot' loop becomes more efficient beyond
a specific amounts then a second law of thermodynamics
violator can become a first law violator and perpetual
motion machines beyond Mawell's Demons become possible.
(b)Does some other limitation kick in to prevent this
from happening, or does this really go on and happen.
I'm wondering if this limitation might reflect the differences
between latent and radiant heating.
 
(c)If certain LENR devices could make use of your invention
then their complexity drops enormously, putting them back
in a race for least-parts-count LENR device leadership to
produce upgraded (electrical) energy. Have you considered
how to handle this probably rather disruptive circumstance?
 
Thank you in advance for your input. Wishing you the best
in your new product launch.

:S:MarkSCoffman
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on April 24, 2012, 04:38:18 AM
Sorry for the delay in answering questions, things are busy at the moment.

@Stefan, the quencos being made for hearing aids are just 1mm x 1mm x 50um thick, so they look like a bit of glitter.

@ broli, yes I am jumping the gun by a few months but it would be nice to talk to engadget and set something up, they can have a hearing aid battery to evaluate before the iPhone battery.
 
@ mscoffaman, I get into enough trouble just stating a violation of the Kelvin interpretation of the 2nd Law so please do not even suggest I am claiming a violation of the First Law of TD. Quenco is a logical and very simple device, it converts a small percentage of tail energy electrons (the hotter than average) and in doing so converts kinetic energy to electrical potential energy, there is no creation of energy and therefore no violation of the 1st law.

I will not be posting anything more here until a few days before the launch. On the launch I will be posting lots of good stuff to leave you with no doubt that quenco is the real deal.

Phil
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on April 26, 2012, 02:40:11 AM
Hi Phillip Hardcastle.


Is good to see you again, We believe in your work.  The theory of previous designs was very good, I hope that this new application, a solid state device, with the help of God,  will be a complete success.

The 100$ battery is a good way to get recognition, keep the good work, the world needit. Any battery maker will be happy to test and buy your IP, inclusive in china.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on May 07, 2012, 01:58:12 PM
Thanks Elisha.


I have posted some updates including an idea I have adopted from comments to build a USB eternal power source.


www.quentron.com



Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on May 07, 2012, 03:07:25 PM
Again one of the technologies I'm really looking forward to this year.

 I hope you stick to the "get famous quick" plan. Engadget (or Gizmodo, The Verge,..), like discussed earlier, will help immensely! After you do this it could become your strongest asset and be a huge leverage to start a crowdfunded project at Kickstarter or variants, which I'm sure will be a huge succes even if the goal was set at 1mil USD. No need to chase investors, no need for backroom deals and shady contracts, this funding can help you get the first year market penetration you desired. After that the world will go crazy and you can sit back and relax.

Be as unconventional as possible, the Internet is an essentially free and very powerful medium use it to your advantage. Of course be careful as well, I'm not a conspiracy nut but strage things tend to happen. But if this goes viral, you the inventor will become deattached from the technology so even if an "unforseen" event happened to you the technology would be safe. The key element hear is proving it as fast as possible by getting it in the hands of influential people.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on May 08, 2012, 03:41:03 AM
Hi Phillip


The first think that you must to do is dump the fear.  This is a new world with new rules, the first rule is work together, in unity with all the world.  You allready make your part, the invention, let the world make the rest, use the power of internet.  Let engineers do the device, let big manufactures make the device, set yourself aside and let anothers do the work that they know to do.


Like broli say, "get famous quick", in the right way, dont have any fear of suppresion, copycat, fear of loosing control of your invention, everybody know that a inventor need the money for the inventions, make the intellectual property, patent, but dont put your fate in this, soon you will discover a lot of brillant scientifics that make your device a lot more powerfull, dont compite with the copycat, work with them, make them work for all the world, they will work for you.

The use of kickstarter is good option, the universal mini usb charger is also good.

The world will recognize you, like a great inventor or like another little egoistic inventor, this depend on you.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on May 18, 2012, 01:46:05 PM
Hi All and Elisha and Broli,


First I have upgraded www.quentron.com (http://www.quentron.com)


Now, most importantly I have reached some conclusions about what to do with this mega breakthrough and the input of many members here is taken onboard.


Let me first say that I do want something for 12 years of work but only enough to live my remaining life with enough to enjoy myself and enough to help my kids out.


The idea of crowd funding is appealing but has some limitations, namely that it requires things to happen without proof and within a time frame.


My idea that I would like you to consider is for me to provide on my website the proof and to get 100s of others to be satisfied that everything is 100% as I say. No fudged data or secrecy, a test showing quenco extracting heat from one cube of water such that it freezes and at the same time power from the quenco going to a heater in another cube of water where that water starts boiling. This witnessed by the top professors from the top universities and with them taking away their own piece of quenco to do whatever tests they want.


Having thus hopefully set the World press on fire I want to leave it to the thousands of engineers, amateurs, hobbyists, entrepreneurs and such to take the patent details I will publish and to make quenco for cars, boats, planes, ipods and so on.


I propose to put on my quentron website a page (and a donate button) such that once a nominal figure is reached the patent rights automatically are granted to every person on the Planet. Thus I am out of the equation and I can go on holiday whilst mega industries are created employing all the unemployed engineers, designers, machinists, car workers and such who have lost their jobs in this economic disaster.


To me the World needs a new vibrant age of invention and innovation and quenco is the fuse that starts that, I personally would only slow that down so I should get out of the way and leave myself to doing a book or a movie about how a Yorkshireman came to invent the quenco.


What do you all reckon. Please leave a comment on my website so i can add them to a page or 2.


Please, if you think what I am saying makes sense tell others and ask them to comment too.


As to the amount it would be fair for me to ask for (remember I will not have the donate page until such time as it is universally accepted that quenco works), you tell me through my contact page and I will tally the results an post them. Ask yourself how much you would want if you had given more than 12 years of your life 60hrs per week unpaid by anyone on such a World changing project.


Thanks for all the supporting comments I have received, and as to some of the nasty ones and posts on other sites may I ask what you ever did to help others? and as to the few threats made I really do not care and I note you did not have the guts to use your real names or emails.


Anyhow, will talk again soon.


Phil


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on May 18, 2012, 04:55:10 PM
Always exciting to hear from you. In my opinion your execution plan sounds reasonable, going viral is your first and only priority. A couple of points/suggestions:

1) The donation money will be the trickiest to do right. You need a good story behind that or people will get suspicious or even worse label you a con man. And it shouldn't be called "donation money". More like "funding to free the IPO and make it a free to produce technology eliminating exclusivity and special interest control" as a favor to the world. So have an obvious meter on your website to reach this goal. Imo a 1-10 million$ goal should be reasonable to drop all license fees.

PS: I know you're very smart, and also smart to know that a technology like this can disrupt the flow of our entire civilization, things as monetary interest are a bit ludicrous if we're talking about free energy. We would shift to a resource based economy, flying around with 3d printed jetpacks, and crossing oceans like it's our backyard rather than expand on the old. But that's just between people who slightly understand the true impact of FE like us, as there's noone that can fully comprehend the change this would bring. This though shouldn't be mentioned when you go viral, in fact never mention how it will be the doom of oil or w/e. Just show what it can do and how it works and let it spread. So your kids will live in a bright future with or without the money you'll make, if that even has any value at that point.

2) Make a professional video that is meant to go viral. This short video should explain 3 things, what this technology is capable of doing, how it works and you dropping license fees after the a certain monetary goal. There's plenty of animation studios that can do this. The style should be again simple and straightforward, it's not a technical video, but a video posted on the main page so people instantly know what it's about. People are lazy and don't like reading so this video is pretty much the intro and the main reason why people should fund the goal.
Here are a few examples of sites that went viral recently:

https://drive.google.com/start#home (https://drive.google.com/start#home)
http://www.kony2012.com/ (http://www.kony2012.com/)

3) Entrust your website to a professional web company (the design can also can be improved) that can handle the loads that will be present when going viral. On the web design/layout part simplicity is key. Keep the site minimalistic, straightforward and modern. Make it follow current popular trends, "single page website" or "responsive layouts". A couple of examples:

http://www.googleventures.com/ (http://www.googleventures.com/)
http://www.thefontain.com/
http://designingmonsters.com/ (http://designingmonsters.com/)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um63OQz3bjo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um63OQz3bjo)

4) Make sure the universities are ready with their reports when the site goes live. So you can include them or graphs from the reports.

5) Stick to the tech blog plan, even if you need to send a passive ice making cube to them! The point is going viral and sparking that wild fire.

6) In a way think about this not being about the technology at all but about a successful viral campaign. Including front page youtube of the above animation video.

7) Once this is all done you can go live and you and us can start spreading the word online and try to get as much news coverage.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mscoffman on May 18, 2012, 08:11:53 PM
@Philip
 
My tendancy is that you should consider the changes your device will
bring to be a "wave" and you need to be able to surf this wave to
your ultimate success goals. This will require having the best and
brightest people in your organization to continue it on into the future.
 
Don't worry about the changes it will bring to society, as we humans
ultimately have and will continue to *greatly* benefit from these type
changes. The costs of some things *must* drop in order to create a
profitable situation and to enable further change.
 
In the free enterprise the monetary system is a data processing system
designed to follow human desire and activities to go where they lead and
to create the optimum in safety and flexibility. The monetrary system, or
cash, should never be left to or expected to lead us humans to what it or
somone else says we want! So create what you desire, make sure it is
safe for the masses and expect the monetary/businesses system track
that. Any different is simply being delusional.
 
:S:MarkSCoffman
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hartiberlin on May 19, 2012, 12:34:14 AM


@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

Hi Phil,
wow such a small scale device can power a hearing aid device ?

1mm x 1mm x 50um thick delivers 1.2 Volts and how many MilliAmps ?

If that can deliver at least 100 MilliAmps that would be great !

Seems you really have found some great material mixes to do this...

It seems to be like a real Maxwell´s daemon circuit, by just ordering the fast
electrons to just one side of the material and just getting a voltage differential.

Looking forward to your release date.

Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on May 19, 2012, 06:02:38 AM
Hi the broli Idea is very good.


The first thing is have the goal clear, "Get to equilibrium with nature", that is: dont use energy fuels that contaminate.

Forget donations, this is "funding new source of energy", "Funding Energy freedom", make several goals, example:
If 1 millon dollars, then we star the production of device model 0.
If 5 millon dollars, then patent 5$ per device
If 10 millon dollars, then patent 1$ per device.
If 50 millon dollars, free patent to all the world.


Is very important to make several prizes related with the funding amount, example:
If 10 dollars or more, then my name in "web page of fame"
If 100 dollars or more, then postal card with my name "I funding the new energy source certification"
If 300 dollars or more, receive test device model 0 and book about the invention.
IF 500 dollars or more, then right to test a sample device modelo 0.
If 1.000 dollars or more, then right to fly to Phillip test facility and take photos with phillip.
If 10.000 dollars or more, then lunch with Phillip.


Be ready to have a full forum, and a very loaded web page.


Dont say anything about the ultimate changes of this technology, we dont know it, just say the happy future, energy for all, creations of employment, small devices, more wireless devices, etc.


God will help you, Phillip.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on May 19, 2012, 07:53:13 PM
Sounds like broli has a fairly good set of ideas (for a change ....   just teasing you broli)  and my guess is the biggest resistance initially to this technology will come from the big battery companies.  Duracell is part of Procter and Gamble.  Eveready will be another that could suffer catastrophic loss once this really gets going.  Like most tech I will guess this may start small in replacing standard batteries in flashlights (this market is much larger than you might think - Candlepowerforums has over 139,000 members) and RC hobby cars, planes etc will likely jump all over having a super long lasting battery.  Then as it is proven it will expand to larger things like cars or home power.   One scenario I can imagine is having the two major battery makers in the U.S. (Duracell and Eveready) get in a bidding war for rights to produce this.  I really have no idea if that could happen but if it did it would seem it could be very lucrative for you.  I think the fact that both these companies make rechargeable batteries (hundreds of times more economical in the long run) and yet that has not killed their throw away battery market says some things will be slow to change but I can imagine them both wanting to have rights to the technology. 
   
   Blessings for all the right forces to be in place for this to move forward successfully.
   WHAT A WONDERFUL WORLD IT WILL BE ....
   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on May 20, 2012, 02:16:33 PM
Hi to all the people who have recently posted advice and ideas, all very much appreciated.


I do not want to disregard the ideas of crowd funding, of competitive bidding wars and so much more you guys have suggested, all of which seem to me to have merit, but reflecting on such comments it came to me that the answer might be simpler and fairer.


SO here is a new idea of mine, if it is dumb please tell me as brutally as you care to (but include your reasoning)


How would it be if I published the patent and the vids and the lab reports, expert reports and anything else, plus give to engadget and gizmo a usb quenco so that everyone can see that 1mm x 1mm piece of Quenco can power an iPhone?


Then I publish a legal document drawn up by experts that essentially says any and everyone on the planet is welcome to use the tech for their own use free of charge, if however you want to use it in a product you must pay a royalty fee equal to 1% of the sale value of the product.


The 1% royalties would be paid into the quenco foundation (to be founded), a not for profit company registered in the USA whose obligations would be to create applications and designs, blueprint, CADs for free distribution to the World.


The foundation would pay me 1% of the 1% royalty fees paid into the foundation.


The foundation would be run by members selected from many countries and who would be suitably qualified (or experienced) in engineering, physics, agriculture and the humanities and other important disciplines. The organisation would be prohibited from owning or controlling any company or stock. Its sole purpose would be to create technology that is for the benefit of mankind (no weapons).




My reasoning for the above is that to make quenco quickly adopted for co2 abatement and food production and.............. is beyond my skills, and probably beyond anyone one person, however the free enterprise model sort of works, but it needs some new dynamic, maybe that change is for future science and technology to be free for all to adopt and profit from, to take as much research away from big business and secret labs as possible.



Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on May 20, 2012, 05:42:58 PM
Dear friend Phillip.
Your idea is fine, but I feel some innocence from you.
 
 1 - this world's problems are not solved by revolutions, even with energetic revolutions.Since the problem is not society but the selfishness of man, the momentum we have for exploiting others for our own benefit. For more changes you make to society, they willonly make-up, the real problem. May end in something worse, as the failure of theSoviet Union, or the current failures of Cuba or North Korea, and on the other hand, the failures of capitalism in the U.S. or of socialism in Europe (see Greece), the road tohell is paved with good intentions. If you make an energy revolution that will be quicklyused as a means of exploitation of man by man, and that real change is done through education to be a "social man".
 
 2 - If you want to help solve society's problems, then you can sponsor innovative educational programs, such as http://ariresearch.org/ (http://ariresearch.org/), which, they can change society by changing the human being.
 
 3 - A foundation should not be to control anything, none the development of this technology, but it can be an incubator for researchers crowdsourcing, that's a very good idea of ​​yours.
 
 4 - If not let us use the crowdsoursing, removing us the opportunity for many to work in this product, and as you'll see on sites like these, there are many people who want todo something.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on May 20, 2012, 06:08:20 PM
Filip, I believe any plan that promotes openness, lack of greed and is different from the status quo is a good one. So yes that's a good plan too, expect for one caveat*. But it's important to have a fixed plan before you proceed because as I mentioned earlier you'll get an INSANE amount of attention. And if I were you I'd try to pull that attention away from me as much as possible and focus it solely on the technology as it can be a big mental burden. So be sure you are prepared, physically and mentally, in fact there should be no reason for you to go out of your neighborhood besides having to sign a manufacturing deal or something. And don't ever something, especially money, convince you of something you didn't plan to do, stick to the plan no matter what comes your way!

You have the huge advantage of your device being uber simple, very small, and I assume very cheap to produce. This is especially important in the beginning, where you can kill any skepticism or smear campaign almost immediately by shipping prototypes in letters to any arm chair scientist who thinks this is bogus. But! Don't ever go jumping through hoops to prove it, just send it out and let them disprove it themselves. That is if the PR stunt to the gadget websites wasn't already proof enough. In the end your goal is the common man, and not pleasing every scientist on the face of this earth.

Elisha, not to get too philosophical, it's true that many of the worlds "problems" are artificial, this you can see in many areas for example by how much money is invested in brain killing entertainment as opposed to things that truly matter. I agree that technology alone won't solve the problems, but they can be an important catalyst to many changes even behavioral changes.
Sick, corrupt, greedy people will always exists in fact if it was up to them even a technology like this should be heavily controlled and taxed, for some twisted unfounded climate change reason. It's our task to never let these corrupt 1% take over the 99% (and no I'm not a "occupy" fan :p). Anyway much more can be said on that subject but this isn't the time and place.

In the end it is very hard to imagine what this will bring forth to the world but of course we all hope it will bring more good than bad.

I'm looking forward to reading that "An iPhone that doesn't need recharging?!" headline on Engadget the coming months.

*How can someone build this tech for personal use free of charge, if they don't have a million dollar nanolab so to speak? Or can you do without?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on May 20, 2012, 09:08:22 PM
I'm not sure how to put this out there but it may help to think about the Chinese part of the equation.  I've seen over and over again in the last decade just how quickly and cheaply manufacturers in China will grab an idea and start pumping out devices so much faster than any other place and their quality has gone up so much in the last 10 years or so that they can equal or even better their counterparts in the U.S. and elsewhere.  I'm not sure exactly how this may all fit into this situation but I think it may be worth putting some thought into it.  They seem to be able to clone things faster and better than any one.  And they don't often hesitate to copy things that are well protected with patents, copyrights and so on.   Is there a way to take advantage of this?  Just some food for thought...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on May 20, 2012, 11:04:11 PM
Friends, it is very important to have a clear goal. Because this affects the decisions we make. It may sound philosophy, but it is historical realism as the basis for the decisions we make.
 
 Phillip needs a clear goal, with clear bases to take the right decisions.
 
 Technology is only a means to achieve the proposed goal, and can change behavior but not its essence, changing the essence you do it through proper education.
 
 From "http://ariresearch.org/books (http://ariresearch.org/books)"
 Why mutual guarantee is the key to our recovery from the Global Crisis
 Why does 1% of the World Population own 40% of the wealth? Why are education systems the world THROUGHOUT Producing unhappy, poorly educated children? Why is there hunger? Why are food prices rising there is more than when to enough food for everyone? Why are there still country clubs WHERE Human dignity and social justice are nonexistent? And when to and how will be made right These wrongs?
 In 2011, touched the hearts These questions Hundreds of millions of the world over. The cry for social justice to demand've Become Which all can unite around. We all long for a society Where We can feel safe, trust our neighbors, and guarantee the future of our children. In Such a society, all will care for all, and mutual guarantee-where all are guarantors of Each Other's well-being-will thrive.
 Interdependence and "globalization" mean what happens in one That part of the world Affects every other part of it. As a result, a comprehensive solution to the crisis in the whole world Must include, for if only one part of it is Healed, other, still ailing parts, will make it ill again.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on May 21, 2012, 01:22:03 AM
Hi,


I have read about 3 times what has been posted, lots of good points but I am perhaps more confused. Not surprisingly there are many valid views.


Let me say a few things about myself (please forgive the number of lines starting with I).


I feel that mankind is as much as ever ripping itself apart, that the some of the mega rich are so mentally sick as to be no better than the worst tyrants of history. I cannot fathom why people would want to own more than they could ever need. EGO EGO EGO I suppose.


With the greatest of respect to the people of China I feel that the HQ for new technology should rest with democracy and perhaps a body like the UN.


I honestly would give away this breakthrough if it meant that it would do maximum good, but I feel that I must protect the IP until such time as I can be sure of the way forward.


I do have a fear of what will happen but then I say that what will be will be, this is a one way trip as soon as I post just one diagram, and if I seem to be a bit cagey about details it is that I have probably already given away enough information for some to have a good guess what quenco is, so until next month and making a choice of what to do I will continue to be guarded.


I talked to my kids and asked them if they were comfortable with the whole thing as I suggested (not that I know a thing for sure) it might impact on their lives in negatives ways, they unanimously said go for it. I still however have some fear about what the unknowns might be for them.


I believe that quenco could be manufactured eventually by anyone who can put together 10k of 2nd hand lab equipment, I myself bought my near new high vacuum BOC Edwards Turbomolecular and Scroll pump system for 5k (it originally sold for about 40k). The present need for fancy labs is just because of expertise that I admit I do not have in ALD, but I see no reason why all the technical steps couldn't be put in a 10 page booklet.


Some comments made about revolution concern me, because my biggest fear is that of unintended consequences. Also that some people will lose their jobs (oil, coal and such) and that those people or related organisations will see me as their enemy. That it might cause other social problems during a period of flux. However part of my discussions with my kids was along those lines but we all agreed that the needs outweigh the risks. Quenco can do what clearly governments in the midst of this economic crisis cannot, stimulate, employ and reduce co2.


I am not in this for the money and if I did not get anything out of this I would probably only be slightly miffed, I do feel that it would be fair to be paid but it is far more important to be helping the majority of people before my life is over. I do not believe in God though I have an open mind because the Universe forever shows it is stranger than we think and thus a gestalt super consciousness might well make sense (if all the neuron firings via the synapses of our brain give us our awareness then perhaps all the universe communicating as it does, man to man, creature to creature, physical events to sentient beings, might create a cosmic awareness) but I am not of the view that there is an after life. This is it, make the best of it, is my view.


I am not of such an opinion of myself that I would think I know the answers or that I am wise, I say that the only reason I have ended up with this is that I am stubborn and have a good record of going against the flow and coming up with the right answer, when I was at high school I stated in the science class that the textbook was wrong, everyone laughed at me but the teacher considered my point and he declared that the textbook was wrong, and in fact was later changed (or so I was told). This is not to say that I am clever but I see things nerdy differently, and sometimes I am just plain lucky with my guesses / intuition. However what I gain in my questioning of all things I lose in my lack of ability to understand people. What I need is people that know how people think to guide me. Which is why I am asking for advice.
 

I do not necessarily believe in MIB but I have placed important documents very widely in the event that something did happen to me (not necessarily from an intended source) and feel that nothing can stop quenco becoming fully disclosed at the right time.


Enough about me and my views.


One thought I had last night was that perhaps I am making this more complex than it needs to be. It was because of a comment made here about the Chines that made me think that the one thing I could manage is to set up a factory that just makes quenco foil and sell that at cost + 10% to anyone that wants it, they can then put it into power sources that they design (the quenco is just a component, it needs to be attached to a heat exchanger otherwise a 1mm x 1mm piece of quenco alone would frost up and so create little power). The need to make quenco cheap could be solved by having at least one plant per country / region that is like a newspaper press, an atomic layer deposition.


Initial production would be 100x100mm wafers patterned to small pieces (say 1mm x 1mm or 1cm x 1cm) but then to continuous film that can be slit and chopped to required size. As I said on my website the power from quenco is more about the heat exchanger so if we can get hold of materials that are better than diamond (graphene for example) at heat conduction then the amount of quenco to make a 100kW power source becomes smaller, my current designs suggest that CVD diamond heat spreaders could reduce the quenco to less than 10cm diameter disc, down from 15cm when using copper, Mark Dansie has suggested that there exists some materials available better than diamond and has told me he can supply me a sample in June.


So I think I am waffling, what I will say is that I will continue to take onboard all your views and ideas and will make and post some plan in due course.


Thanks.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on May 21, 2012, 08:13:32 AM
Philip,  Having read your last post I think you are an even wiser man than you give yourself credit for.   I think you will do fine with all this.  I read a message somewhere that was a fairly well thought out (or at least it seemed very plausible) scenario for what will happen when a real free energy device or device that will change the energy landscape comes into real use.  I wish I could find that message but I can't even think how to search for it now.  Either way in thinking about that message it seemed reasonable but introduce a million people or 7 billion and I don't know if there is any way to really know what will happen.  Having followed the stock market for a couple years and seeing how schizophrenic all that is (the words of Warren Buffet even) it's really hard to say how business, people in general and the whole economic system might respond to a new energy source.   In my opinion you are a true HERO for making the plan to go forward with this.  Done right there is no reason to think you will be in danger.  Not to downplay what you have but it's my feeling this might trickle into the energy world a with a bit less fanfare than you might think.  I could be wrong as I haven't even seen the details yet but for changes in high tech devices it could move in fairly fast but other mainstream larger energy applications I think it might be slow in making any big waves on the energy scene.   And my favorite new closing line for very promising threads:   
         
             What a Wonderful World It Will Be
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on May 21, 2012, 09:28:41 AM
No one can really predict the future and trying to predict every possible outcome will make you go mad. Just stick to one plan and see it through, that's all. Of course things will go wrong and things you didn't expect will happen, but that's life whether you are trying to release FE tech or trying to win the heart of a woman/man.

I've really come to hate the word "jobs". If you'd ask anyone whether they'd keep doing their "job" if they wouldn't get paid but had their basic physiological needs met (food, water, shelter, energy) I can assure you the overwhelming majority would answer with a resounding NO. It's really not about the pay but about what you ENJOY doing, and having the freedom to switch whenever you want doing whatever you want. So seeing people here say "it will destroy/create jobs" is comical in a sense. "Jobs" turn good people into good sheep.

In a resource based economy there is no money. There are no investors. Nothing is capital-intensive. There is no capital. There is no system of payments and repayments. There is no interest, aside from people’s interest in doing what needs to be done. There is no buying and selling. There is no ownership. There are no shortages. There are no crises. There's only abundance and the unleashed infinite potential of human creativity and ingenuity.
Of course our current system is still far from that as EVERYTHING is based on capital which consequently leads to a "few owning the majority" paradigm. Which also allows things like selfishness, greed and corruption to THRIVE as we can see today.
However the "big" change will come. Just look at any empire in history that once was, no matter how big they were they all fell. It will be a long, and painful for some, change but we will get there. It surely won't happen overnight as many tend to believe.

I also have to say I really like you because you're one of the few "inventors" who is open to discussion and alternate views. It's very rare to have intelligent discussions like these with someone who has "something" and wants to bring it out. Usually it ends up in a greed and paranoid infested discussion that helps no one.

But at the end of the day you just have to let go of all the unknowns and fears and go for it. Like Richard Branson would say, "Screw it, let's do it".
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on May 21, 2012, 09:39:10 AM
I have not thoroughly verified this but it looks very much in line with info I do have.  This just shows the level of suppression in the patent office and only highlights the hazards of using the U.S. Patent process for any energy device.  Well worth the read of this former Department of Energy employee.   Sorry to bring it up here but it may be relevant to some decision making.  I just saw broli's last post and agree that you are an especially open and intelligent inventor and THAT is what I think will make your chance of real success much better than most.  I'll just add that having a plan is good but stay agile and fast to change the plan a bit if needed.    Post below is the scary suppression stuff of our government being ruled by mega-corporations.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66460-green-plasma-battery-former-doe-employee-admits-cover-up-in-progress/
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on May 22, 2012, 07:18:24 AM
Hi Guys,


Thanks for more food for thought.


Thanks for the vote of confidence in my wisdom too, though only time will tell on that one.


I read all the comments with great interest and find that this website is populated primarily by people with good hearts and intentions, most here have hope for a better future, and most are tolerant of those with the exotic beliefs about gravity and magnetic motors. I guess it is for that reason that I can talk here about the even more exotic device that violates the 2nd without having know all do nothings attack.


What I have seen is that there is a common thread of looking for a solution under any and every stone, because the other option is to do nothing and see the poor become poorer, the planet become more damaged, and our future generations inherit a World worse than when we enjoyed it.


It is my duty to find the best solution that I can also live with personally, by that I mean the maximum social utility and the least hard work for me.


I have had considered all the good ideas and values expressed here (and and odd ponder about if patents might be suppressed - for good or bad reasons)


So my mind seems to be favoring the idea that I obtain patents under the PCT and enforce them as and when it becomes needed to stop the crooks making counterfeit quenco film, Then to issue a licence (a simple statement) for ALL people and organisations to free to use quenco in their products, provided that it is the genuine Quenco film bought from your local Quenco distributor.

My view is that I will push the price of quenco film manufacturing as low as it will go with a tiny profit margin to fund research, this price will always be lower than anyone else could make it for (ie counterfeiters could not make it cheaper so why would they bother).

The first challenge will be in 2013 to produce 1mm x 1mm 5v 10W Quenco for $10 and 1cm x 1cm 24v 1kW Quenco for $100, initially via quentron.com

Hopefully by 2014 I can scale so that the price could fall to half that, and then so on........

If I can then find ways to reduce these prices 10 fold then I will, ultimately it would be simply mind blowing if I can get the larger 1cm x 1cm tiles out the door for just $1.

I currently believe that most applications will need just one of these sizes, larger sizes (power apps) can simply be accommodated by multiple tiles.

There may be some need for higher and lower voltages.



Anyhow this is not my final position as yet, just airing my thoughts for feedback.


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on May 22, 2012, 07:39:02 AM
I forgot to add, the availability of cheap as chips quenco will allow all the frustrated inventors here and everywhere (and clean energy advocates) to get serious and build power source units and create new apps / inventions.


BTW, one other thought was to add 10% to the sale price of all quenco so as to provide free quenco to the 3rd World economies.


Ooops, and the Quenco patent, and the profit stream, becomes vested (the property of) the not for profit foundation I talked of previously that develops open source technology.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on May 22, 2012, 07:54:28 AM
By doing all these things I relieve myself of the promotional aspect, I just make quenco film, you make USB power sources to sell, you get engadget and such to feature your product, you start a hearing aid battery business, you design electric car power packs.................


See I have a lazy solution that gets things moving faster, do you agree?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lancaIV on May 22, 2012, 12:28:52 PM
Hello Mr. Hardcastle,
do you know about this invention  www.powerchips.gi (http://www.powerchips.gi)  ?
About cool chips and so on ?
Their intentions has been to produce the KWp chips for 20$ !
But this is a time-long story !

I hope for you that your wishes and ideas will not have  the same results and that you will learn from the Borealis company the difference between success and fiasko !

Sincerely
                 CdL

p.s.:  also the Joseph C. Yater story ( more than 30 years R&D )let me say to you : "Be carefull ! "
p.s.II : you have not to be concerned about the consequences like unemployment of others !

           cheap energy will change the global economy rules !
           Desert can become "paradise" ! Like Phoenix/Arizona (= zona arida )
           Cheap energy for desalinisation, for the agricultury ! www.canlaser.com (http://www.canlaser.com)  : the green desert invention

           And see here another "unemployment risk", inventor Bherokh Khosnevis UCLA :
           http://craft.usc.edu/CC/modern.html (http://www.contour-crafting.com)   3D house printer : 186sqm in 24 hours productivity
           More than 1 Mio. ,only for the U.S. , construction worker will loose their jobs !
           This is the contour-crafting.org-estimation !
           But construction will become also safer,cheaper and the consumer would change from fossil energy
           combustion heating to electric ambient  heating with positive health effect !
            Much more electric bi-/tri-cycle user in the cities !
           Cheaper hybrid-kits for cars and.... and..... and.... !
           You see : Each actio has ever a reactio,ever and everywhere !
           What you can do is to accelerate the global living style conversion movement !
                       
           And making the poor men a little richer,the rich men a little poorer !
           
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on May 22, 2012, 02:10:45 PM
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

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on May 22, 2012, 02:32:45 PM
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

I wouldn't mind if you sent me a sample to help out :p. I could even go to some big universities here in Belgium for real lab tests.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lancaIV on May 22, 2012, 04:14:32 PM
Mr. Hardcastle,

I did not compare the quenco with the power/cool chips !
I adviced you to pay attention for a company which for the first time presented their thermionic converter invention 1997 !!!                                           This are 15 years back !!!

And I named another inventor who get in the seventhies of the last century his thermionic inverter tested by the DOE and functionally aproved . But no more help !

Sincerely
                CdL

p.s.: Later when your prototype will be technical aproved,

        a.  you can also funding your invention by selling 0,%-fee/royalty-rights without to sell patent-right-ownership !

        b. many people can also invest in "options/ natural participation certificate" with the comercial right to buy the
             quenco with fixed %-discount ! ( like time-share )
         
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on May 22, 2012, 05:27:24 PM
Dear friend Philip.
My parents raised me to be an analyst of what happens in nature, to build on repeatable events, realities.
During my school life, I also realized that what the books say is not written in stone, they have errors. Which cost me more than one occasion to go bad marks against the established and what the teachers say. Although some teachers had an open mind, most were very close in the method that they had prescribed.


In my country Venezuela, a third world country, I lived among people with a lot of money (millions of dollars) and people with very little (1 dollar a day), see the wealth of some and the misery of others, made me think of way to reduce this gap, I made the observation that the rich have access to a lot of energy and the poor have little access to energy, so it occurred to me that to help the poor should look for a very cheap energy source.


Since then find ways to make more efficient energy sources and make available new sources of energy. So I loved the ideas of Phillip Hardcastle, as their thermionic devices would be the ultimate solution.


Also try to help the poor in more direct ways, giving them food, shelter, etc.. Of which had a series of bitter experiences, being a victim of theft, fraud and even blows. Hard-learned an old adage, "do not give the fish, teach to fish". The only real way to help people is through teaching them to think, as going on in Haiti or Somalia, if you give them what they need will get only more misery.


So I get to the institute ARI http://ariresearch.org/ (http://ariresearch.org/), which is already running educational institutes, which teach people to thinking and feeling, which is a total systemic change, not a mere improvement of the current system, change at the root.  When i meet to their students, I realized that actually this is the real solution to all problems of the world, here the individual learns to be like the human body cells, which work for the benefit of all the body, benefiting to themselves. While today's society teaches how to take advantage the most of the others for your own benefit, to be a super selfish, egoistic.

Friend Phillip, Quenco is a body and Ari Institute is the soul, and a pure body needs a pure soul.


So after some thought, the following is proposed, using the ideas of Broli and Philip.

Premises:
- Quenco is cheap to produce, $ 10 and $ 100 10W 1kW (that's cheap, very cheap).
- Quenco requires little investment, $ 500,000 per factory.
- Phiilip has patents.
- There are Quenco devices of 1mmx1mm and Quenco 1cmx1cm actually running.
 
Proposal:
- A Global Foundation with global presence to make Quenco and use the proceeds to fund the educational system change worldwide, free and quality education for all mankind, Philip receives only 0.1% of the overall profit on this foundation.
- Let people and enterprises do the devices, USB Charger, hearing battery, etc.
- The foundation produces and sells Quenco at Cost + 20%.
- Building a factory in every region of the world, 1 - USA East, 2 - USA West, 3 - Western Europe, 4 - Eastern Europe, 5 - China, 6 - Japan, 7 - Australia, 8 - Israel, 9 - South Africa, 10 - Venezuela, 11 - Mexico. 12 - Central, 13 - Brazil, etc.. Reaching 20 Quenco factories worldwide.


- Crowdsoursing, the 10 million dollars for the 20 factories.
With the following awards for participation:
If 10 dollars or more, Then my name in "web page of fame"
If 100 dollars or more, Then Postal certificate with my name "I Funding the new energy device Quenco" and participation in R & D forum of Quenco.
If 300 dollars or more, Receive Quenco model 5V 10W 1mm x 1mm.
If 1,000 dollars or more, Receive Quenco model 24V 1KW 1cm x 1cm.
If 20,000 dollars or more, Then right to know and lunch with Phillip.
 
You will need:
- A group of people who will help implement this plan.
- Make a professional video That Is Meant to go viral. This short video Should Explain 3 things, What This technology is capable of doing, how it works, let people dream, put this video in youtube and front page.
- Entrust your website to a professional web company (the design can be improved Also can) That can handle the loads will be present That when to going viral.
- Get ready to send this fame from you to your soul, change the system of education at all the world, make the people happy.
 
Piracy protections:
- Will sell at low cost, so the competition will have to think before imitate.
- Your noble purpose, money to change the educational system, will give you the support of the world population.
- Crowdsourcing to help you defend it.
- International law will support you, because you have the patents.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on May 22, 2012, 07:38:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lancaIV on May 22, 2012, 07:41:15 PM
@microcontroller:
how many companies -with technical and financial success- can you recognize in the peswiki-page ?
This is real economy, a 500 german midle/great companies R&D study ( Kienbaum, Manager Magazin) from the eightees :

                                from           1176 ideas
                                became       376  board-projects
    entered the market                176  products
became a financial success       11 products = ideas

Real success is very rare.

Sincerely
                 CdL
                                 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on May 22, 2012, 08:13:23 PM
Part of success always depends on how good the idea is and how universally applicable it is.  I think Quenco is a great idea that can be applied in so many different things that it will be highly successful if Philip can navigate the path to getting it out to the world.   I think he is well on his way.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on May 22, 2012, 08:46:57 PM
To butt 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 quentron 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mscoffman on May 22, 2012, 09:36:44 PM

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.

Yes...and by the way, to think with their brains and not with their portfolios. :-)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mscoffman on May 22, 2012, 09:53:25 PM
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.

Hold on a minute Broli... you've gone a little bit too far.
 
A Maxwell's Demon is a good source of energy, but only if you've got lots of
"heat to spare". Here is the problem; If your device "destroys heat" to make
energy, you need to make sure that you didn't pay exorbitant costs to make
that heat in the first place. Now any energetic process like a living being
will be producing a certain amount of excess energy - but that amount is not
so large. Also, devices like computers can use that capability because they created
heat in the first place to do computations and you are reusing a certain amount.
Good.
 
But you can see where there is a problem. In a cold climate like Alsaka there may
not be enough excess heat in the first place. In a cold basement, or cold closet
or cold garage where you have to actually pay to produce that heat in the first place
with a furnace or on the roadway with a large numbers of moving vehicles all
trying to access ambient temperature air. In fact, a Maxwell's Demon will actually
differentially benefit people living in warm climates, manufacturing will best be done
on the equator! While we living in cold climates are going to just need to make do. Heat pumps can help, making solar collectors out of ordinary stuff, but to really work Maxwell's demons will need to be paired with specific size energy producers or consumers. So in fact
I would expect Philip's devices to work best when joined to LENR heat producer rather
then substituted for it. That way one has real energy. This Maxwell demon stuff has
unintented consequences such as needing a person to have to decide whether energy generated is going to be transmitted away or is locally converted to heat. We currently
don't have to consider these facts when we use energy. The Utility company always
transmits its billable energy away from it. We can decide to do computations or power an
amature radio transmitter with it without any use penlty. That why I now favor led lights
for dummy loads for overunity experiments as they transmit their energy away from the
device under test rather then dissipate it as heat locally.
 
:S:MarkSCoffman
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on May 22, 2012, 11:01:43 PM
mscoffman, this is actually a good subject for a fear mongering smear campaign, not that I'm associating you with one but this discussion will indeed be brought up by people who have an interest in it not succeeding.

My point of view of it? First of all, it's COMPLETELY baseless. Let us be ignorant and assume that yes ambient heat is "destroyed" but do you know how much energy the earth and the atmosphere collect on one single day? I'm sure if you did you wouldn't be so concerned. And apparently it's okay to promote solar energy like crazy, which would also "destroy" heat by that same logic, but this not?

Second of all, did you know that EVERY electric device that has resistive elements is a joule heater, ie produces heat as current goes by. Yes the average kinetic energy (ie temperature) of the nearby air molecules gets reduced but this energy is regained when your device is emitting infrared as joule heating. If I use a quenco powered heater that heats my room by removing it from the outside eventually, depending on insulation primarily, that heat will diffuse back into the atmosphere. You're not destroying anything! In the heater case you're just filtering the colder air molecules out of your room, and in the electric devices case you are remitting the energy as infrared. This is why a CPU can run on its own heat, the actual information processing itself doesn't use up energy but pushing around electrons creates heat.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lancaIV on May 23, 2012, 08:12:13 PM
I am myself wondering about the internal process of the quenco chip/film because 10sqcmx10sqcm comparing with an usual thermionic converter with 75% heat/electric conversion efficiency and 2000W/sqm sunenergy means 67x sun concentrating !
It is not the Wp/sqcm ( comparing with the Fellows Research group Mems-TAR  www.resonant-energy.com (http://www.resonant-energy.com)  ),it is the question about the heat/energy source which will deliver the electric output energy about I am me wondering !

Sincerely
                 CdL
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: neptune on May 24, 2012, 02:33:10 PM
This is a difficult concept to get ones head around, because it sounds too good to be true. If it does prove to be true, and makes it to market, its impact on society is probably beyond our ability to imagine it. It will change the whole way that we think about electricity. The power grid will become obsolete in a very short time , as all domestic appliances will come with their own power supply. The same with light fittings. We have all heard the expression that half a loaf is better than no bread. Imagine the impact in African villages of cheap everlasting LED lighting, and water/irrigation pumps that need no fuel. Battery chargers will be relegated to museums.
       The electric car without charging will help tremendously, but will not solve congestion. So a better early application will be electric bicycles, more affordable, and more eco friendly.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lancaIV on May 25, 2012, 04:39:55 PM
I can also accept the production price estimation :

solar/thermionic cell
2000Wp clear sky daylight energy max./sqm 
 5% solar foil and 10% wafer cell solar light to electricity conversion
= 100Wp-foil and 200Wp wafer cell electric;
each Wp production price  foil:0,5 US$ and wafer cell: 1,0 US$
 sqm-foil price: 100US$ and sqm-wafer cell: 200 US$

the quenco 1KW-chip/foil has the dimensions 10cmx10cm =100sqcm   = 1/100sqm       
     
= for this dimension the solar foil price is 1 US$ and solar wafer cell price is 2 US$ !           
   but Mr. Hardcastle estimate 100 US$ production  costs for the quenco foil/chip !


Sincerely
                 CdL

p.s.: with cooling the heat to elctric conversion max. of the thermionic converter can reach 10W/sqcm = 100KW/sqm
         but with external heat source
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on May 25, 2012, 07:34:07 PM
Dreaming About LENR and Quenco, Working together, Because They Are complementary technologies.
Where do cold or need more heat than it can remove from the atmosphere, launch a LENR and ready, we will have all the energy we need.

LENR and Quenco are so disruptive, and LENR truly need QUENCO, that we need to talk about priorities.

First, it should be very clear several realities:
- The global economic system is in sharp implosion: Due to their mathematical basis, that capital plus interest can not be paid from the capital but will need to bring money from the future , so there is a debt so huge, and only bring money for the future work if the economic activity expands ever faster, and that is not possible in an integral world.
- Unemployment will continue to grow every day more worldwide.
- Most of the jobs are not productive but administrative. productive jobs are those that are related to something that we directly consume or use, this jobs are few.
- The global production system is focused on making products that are quickly discarded, to buy another, so-called planned obsolescence.
- We are destroying the planet's resources.
- We are destroying the planet spices.
- We are leaving a broken world to future generations.

Therefore, LENR and technologies necessary to Quenco are what every thinking human beings need.

- Learning to think and dont let others make our decisions and tell us to do. Learning that the good of society is the good of the individual.
- Work only few hours a day, to maintain the general infrastructure of the city, country, etc., to keep eating, dressing, driving, etc..
- Work freely each in what everyone seems best for the benefit of humanity and nature.
 
The demand for LENR and Quenco be so great that any network worldwide factories may give you supply, so we have to give priority to certain sectors of production.

Priority 1:
- Electricity in homes, so the unemployed will have less pressure on the monthly payment of electric service and will be able from their ingenuity to develop products for their family income.
- Clean water, either by air extraction or purification of existing contaminated sources.
- Electric Bicycles in electric bicycle community would give a tremendous boost as the biggest cost is the battery.
 
Priority 2:
- The electric car, eliminating battery bank, would lower the price of electric cars $ 50,000 to $ 15,000 today.
- Elimination of electric plug in home devices, wireless computer, wireless LED bulbs, cordless vacuum cleaner, Electric cooker Induction cordless wireless stereo, washing machine wireless, wireless refrigerator, etc..
 
Priority 3:
- Cordless Phones.
- Aircraft of fuel.
 
If I was Phillip Hardcastle, I will:
1 - Half of the Quenco profits to invest in the proper education, worldwide.
2 - Buy  http://www.qmpower.com/ (http://www.qmpower.com/), which is highly efficient electric motors, the best technology of the moment.
3 - Buy http://www.teslamotors.com/ (http://www.teslamotors.com/), which has a good design.
4 - design and manufacture worldwide via Open Source, all kinds of long-life devices, from light bulbs to cars, to last materials, repairable, upgradeable and recyclable. The devices would call timeless.
 Impact on society:

- The politicians would lose their importance of today.
- The boundaries would be more free.
- The food would be cheaper.
- Devices would be more expensive but would last a lot.
- The transport would be cheaper.
- There would be more automation.
- Would have over time to be really where we like, with friends, family, etc.
- Would have more groups of music, dance, theater, exercise, field trips, agriculture, etc..
- We would have a world in harmony with nature, clean and full of life.


Recomend to read http://www.kabbalahbooks.info/The-Psychology-of-the-Integral-Society-p/psychology-of-integral-society.htm (http://www.kabbalahbooks.info/The-Psychology-of-the-Integral-Society-p/psychology-of-integral-society.htm) to understand more this new society.


Also from manufacture point of view http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/cmp/eetimes052112/?cid=NL_UBM+Electronics#/46 (http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/cmp/eetimes052112/?cid=NL_UBM+Electronics#/46)  there is and excellent article of Electronic Engineering Times Magazine.  Why China?

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hartiberlin on May 26, 2012, 01:21:04 AM


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

Dear Philip,

I would be really glad if you would send me such a 1 mm x 1mm sample,
my address is on the about us page here:

http://www.overunity.com/5552/impressum-about-us/ (http://www.overunity.com/5552/impressum-about-us/)

But I still can hardly imagine, how such a small device can at least deliver more than
a few milliwatts, but you claim Watts ?

Well, if you really can crank out so much current from such a tiny chip it is
also pretty dangerous to handle as a tiny shortcircuit at the edges could already start a fire !

And surely the chip would go so cold, that it will freeze and might break apart,
if it is based on ceramics or something like that,
when it gets too cold too fast, that means it is based on material that does not like to get cold too fast
or will have an unequal temperature difference along its surface...
then it might end in a structural failure and break apart.

Have you already tested your material enough about this ?

So it should be handled with care, as some loose wires touching its surface could start a fire and shatter the chip
by cooling it too fast during a shortcircuit ?


Regards, Stefan.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: neptune on May 26, 2012, 01:56:56 PM
@Harti. I really hope that you do get a sample of this. If you do, I hardly need to remind you of the responsibility that goes with it. You will be representing all the people who have supported this forum over the years. You have a responsibility to the inventor. Indeed you have a responsibility to all the people of Planet Earth. You must work with care , and publish a fair and unbiased test.
        I am sure I speak for everyone when I say that you are a good choice as our representative, and we have 100% faith in your Technical ability, and honesty.


 Maybe this guy should apply for the Overunity Prize?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on May 26, 2012, 05:07:31 PM
Maybe this guy should apply for the Overunity Prize?

No, there's no sound reason why he should.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: neptune on May 26, 2012, 07:38:45 PM
@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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on May 26, 2012, 09:08:07 PM
@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?

It's the former. If you read the whole thread you'll know why. The prize does not fit his strategy.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on May 27, 2012, 01:54:39 AM
Hi All,


Quick post. Response to some issues, not necessarily in order.


Quenco current capability is a mind blowing 10,000A/cm2 but that should not be considered alone, at 10,000A/cm2 the voltage is only a few mv, at 1,000A/cms it is 100mv, at 100A/cm2 we can get a little more voltage, and so on. The open circuit voltage is limited by reverse leakage and so is about 250mv per layer.

For 5v we need to lay down many layers but as each layer is 1.2nm it still looks like an impossibly thin film. If we want to have an output of 5v at 2Amps we need only 25 layers, if we want 5v at 1000 amps we need 50 layers. At 50 layers or 25 layers the heat flux into the quenco is little different (the extra 25 layers amounts to only an extra 30nm and so with a thermal conductivity of approx 1w/cmk even 1 degree gradient becomes MW/cm2).

So as I said before getting the heat in is the problem. A 1mm x 1mm single Quenco layer at 100mV has a current output of 10A, if loaded (shorted) it would output its energy to the limit of the shorts inductance and resistance limitation and then rapidly frost. If there were 50 layers its output would be higher and so instantaneous output greater, but the temperature depression would happen faster. If we take the thermal mass of 1mm x 1mm x say 50um (end contacts being most of that) then we might calculate the the energy it could dissipate to a load as being  50,000,000 um3 which is 50/1000 mm3 or 50/1,000,000cm3, so even if it had a specific heat capacity of 1J/cm3/k we would have 15mJ, this is not likely to weld or damage anything.

Second is that if we had a 1000 layer 24V quenco of 10cm x 10cm having an output capability of MW we could short an edge quite safely as the end conatct layers are only um thick so the transverse current to a short is quite small, it is only when we couple the 10cm x 10cm to a bus bar of 10cm x 10 cm that we can fully obtain the MW power capability. Let me say it in a more stark way, if you had a 100MW piece of quenco you could hammer a nail through it without much drop of output or danger of fire. Like I have said before quenco converts heat to power at quantum scale and so just as with Esaki diodes the tunneling current is very very high, but quenco is limited by the heat flux into it, for MW output at say 1000V we could use just 1cm x 1cm of 10,000 layer (12um thick) but I defy anyone to figure out how to get that much heat to the quenco, at best using graphene we could have (by my modeling) 10kW per cm2 energy flow from ambient to quenco (depressed by -100C from ambient). Super critical CO2 might be a simple means of transferring energy in but ultimately it is easier to reduce quenco manufacture price and just use more cm2 tiles.

My guess is that we get down to $1 a cm2 tile with 200V @ 10A output (to suit electric cars) and use 50 tiles per car. Obviously if the tiles were to cost $1,000 then there would be reason to use less tiles but better heat input infrastructure.

I must say that I am totally out of my depth on the issue of getting heat in and I have not filed any patents on graphene or sc CO2 heat exchangers, many people can take ownership of these issues. I will stick with the issue of getting quenco made as cheap as possible.


So I have covered a few technical things, as to me claiming the OU prize I already have pledged a fair chunk of the prize so I would be claiming against myself, but more importantly quenco is not OU, nor would I want to take away the prize anyway, it remains as a beacon (hopefully one that grows in cash) to encourage a search for new science / invention. I am sure the prize money will come from many sources once quenco becomes mainstream and that money will be helpful to buy more roll to roll equipment.

Lastly, and this is painful, I am now 100% sure I cannot deliver the vid experiment for 1cm x 1cm tiles by 11 June, we just have had too many delays getting films deposited, I will post here as soon as I am sure of the guaranteed dates, I will post some info on quentron.com in early June as an update.


If I had to make a bet about the date I would say end of June is possible, July is certain. I am not wriggling or being evasive, and it will be "soon", but since I do not have my own nanofab (yet) I am not totally in control of production. We have however great hopes that it will be this coming week.


Bye for now.


BTW, if I make a silly mistake in my quick calcs (and I often do), or do not express myself clearly, please email me at pjhardcastle@gmail.com, but please do not expect a quick reply, and please do not expect me to give out any more technical info - that must remain restricted until launch.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: neptune on May 27, 2012, 04:27:38 PM
Hi Philip, and many thanks for the technical information, although some of the calculations are a bit over my head. One thing that seems obvious, is that the big problem initially is going to be getting enough heat into the thing. I get the impression that output is going to be dependent on maintaining a temperature gradient. To power an electric car, high tech methods and materials look to be pretty much essential. Hopefully for the multitude of lower power applications the market demands, a lower tech cheaper option will be more appropriate, using materials such as copper and aluminium, possibly with a forced air supply to prevent freezing.
       Whilst it is a shame that you will not be able to meet the June 11th deadline, I hope you will do your best to keep us informed of developments. Do not underestimate the publicity that you will get by sending a sample to Hartiberlin, he is well respected in these fields.
       Finally do not underestimate the demand for electric bike batteries. This is a huge market, just waiting for a development like yours. And at 2 to 300 Watts, much less demanding than car batteries.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on May 27, 2012, 08:35:48 PM
Just a small bump in the road.  I'm sure those following this thread will still be here as I will.  I had not thought about the e-bike connection but that would truly be a great one.  As it is probably the only thing that has kept me from getting an e-bike is the rather low range they have.   With only a slightly larger scooter style you could probably house a fair sized unit.  That brings to mind the idea of using the quentron in parallel with some standard lead acid or Li-Ion or Li-Poly batteries to possibly give more current short term as needed while having the quentron be able to constantly recharge the standard battery if it was not pulling full power at the time.  As I don't have a good grasp yet on this new technology I don't know if that would even make sense to do but just wanted to mention it as it crossed my mind in regards to the e-bike.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: neptune on May 27, 2012, 09:28:20 PM
Slightly off topic, but let me say a few words about Ebikes. First of all, they are out there in big numbers. China alone has 120 million, and counting. So people would buy everlasting batteries from tomorrow. Large numbers of Ecars have yet to be built. Remember that an Ebike is not an electric motorcycle, it is an electrically assisted bicycle. I own a 10 year old Ebike that runs on three 12 volt lead acid batteries , 36 volts. Maximum range on the flat without pedalling is 20 miles. With light pedal assistance the range is about 30 miles. Modern Ebikes with LiFepo4 batteries can double that range.
      Cruising on the flat, amp draw is 5 or 6 amps. During acceleration it rise to about 15 amps. So, if you had an everlasting battery that would only give 5 or 6 amps, You could make up the shortfall by pedalling during acceleration and on hills. Remember that legally an Ebike is just a bicycle. An electric motorcycle could have much higher speed, range and acceleration. But you need a special driving license, road tax , insurance, and endless other legal hassles.
       Owing to poor eyesight I no longer drive. My Ebike is my car, and meets over 90% of my needs.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on May 27, 2012, 10:22:03 PM
If the problem of QUENCO is the ability of the materials to heat reception, then the impact will be tremendous.
In telecommunications, the next advance, are high-altitude platform, in the form of quadrotores, blimp or airplanes, and the problem is POWER, with Quenco this issue is resolved, allowing lower the price of telecommunications to 1/10 of today, at this altitude the penetration of the signal is high and the coverage is uniform, the delay is much less than the satellite since they are at a shorter distance, and the cost of implementation is very low cost. Example http://www.gizmag.com/aerovironment-uav-communications-relay/22679/ (http://www.gizmag.com/aerovironment-uav-communications-relay/22679/)
And for air transport, star up like Synergy  http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/launchsynergy/synergy-aircraft-project (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/launchsynergy/synergy-aircraft-project)  QUENCO is a blessing from the sky.


Being QUENCO a technology that uses machinery of the semiconductor industry, and given the huge potential is obvious that each company in this industry will be manufacturing QUENCO, faster than once, either with permission or without permission from Phillip, and will get the information either patents or information that Phillip will make public or directly from dissection QUENCO device, There is companies that  job is dissection of semiconductor designs. Therefore, it is good that Phillip has its own global network of manufacturing, but must have a well defined busines plan so that each semiconductor manufacturer in the world can start making QUENCO and pay royalties.
I think this scheme is a royalty per unit manufactured, by Watts.
1 unit of 1 Watt -> 0.1 Dollar.
1 unit of 10 Watt -> 1 Dollar.
1 unit of 100 Watts -> 5 Dollar.
1 unit of 1000 watts -> 50 dollar.


Concerning the overunity PRIZE, QUENCO qualify, since it produces electric power without consuming nothing but heat from the environment, as well as many motors that supposedly run overunity  and they cooled environment. At the end I do not think that we can get something that will produce energy from nothing, there will always be to consume or transform something.   Think, if we put a AAA battery in a circuit next to QUENCO and you dont know what QUENCO do, and power a motor and recharge the AAA battery, this will win the overunity Prize? the answer is yes.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on May 28, 2012, 12:17:29 AM
@Admin, could you remove my email address from my previous post for me? I have been warned about spammers and did receive one already.


@All and Harti, I feel that claiming the OU prize would be unpopular, if however everyone wants me to claim the prize let's make it more interesting, I will double my current pledge to $10,000 (Harti could you please update my pledge) and those that want the prize to be claimed and want to support free energy can choose if they want to pledge some or double their existing pledge, all the money will go to quenco chips (not a penny for me) for members, to be distributed by Harti or a committee for use in applications (open source).


As to Copper or Aluminium units, a small blower fan on a copper finned heatsink with a 1cm2 Quenco should easily provide a kW output in a coke can sized unit (a sort of hair dryer in reverse). That would be a good idea for a few hundred million bikes (that can go up steep hills). Governments should allow free registration (no road tax) for such as it gets the masses of poorer people to work every day in China and other Asian nations. Also environmentally aware people in Europe and the USA could leave their cars at home to lower global co2 emissions.


 



Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on May 28, 2012, 03:56:05 AM
I just went to the OverUnity Prize section to try and post a $5,000 increase to my existing $5,000 pledge, where I noticed that Stefan has previously posted that the prize is not available to people that patent their IP. 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.



Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: conradelektro on May 28, 2012, 12:28:46 PM
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.

It is quite simple:

1) Patents protect the right of the patent holder to make money exclusively. In other words, the patent holder can stop others to use his contraption (for 20 years after filing date). This might not work in practice, because the patent holder can be outsmarted by filing a great number of similar patents and it would cost too much to fight all the other patents. Big money can also ignore the patent and risk a very expensive legal battle, which the patent holder can not sustain and not win due to lack of funds. In China and other third world countries nobody cares about patents and in the industrialised countries they get you by perverting the law with money.

2) The only way to fight large corporations or big money is COMPLETE DISCLOSURE of the idea so that many people can do research and can try to manufacture products based on the idea. Of course the "inventor" will probably get nothing not even fame because many people will claim it was their idea.

So, dear Mr. Hardcastle, it is all about money and who gets it. Your " best blanket safe position" is the wish or the need to get money. This is not bad, but why not say so straight away. Posing as the good guy is just silly. Please do not try to safe me or the world, we save ourselves by trying to make money ourselves and we say so straight away.

My prediction: you will loose money, no matter what you do.

If your idea is a "law of nature newly discovered by you" it can not be protected, because you can only patent specific contraptions making use of this newly discovered principle. ( A principle or "law of nature" can not be patented, many people do not understand that.) Large corporations and big money will come up with many different ways of using your discovery (besides your ways of doing it) and you can do nothing to stop that.

Dream about money and fame till you wake up. And please do not disclose your ideas here, we will take it and become stinking rich. In case you have something, disclose it to the right scientific establishments. You could also write a book about it, and you can sell it, even if it is nonsense (as many have done successfully). I know, it is difficult to be heard, but the world is a hard place.

I look forward to the date of your eventual coming out. May the Megawatts flow. Words do not create electricity.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on May 28, 2012, 01:54:46 PM
@Conrad,


I fully understand patents, I have not made a new discovery of nature, what I have done by design, novel application of materials, and topology is to overturn part of the much lauded, but unproven, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (The Kelvin Interpretation). As it happens Quenco cannot be improved or simplified, it is by its nature as good as it can get, so as a patent it will no doubt go down in history as being an ultimate. It cannot be added to, it cannot be reduced so big business cannot circumvent it, therefore by my patenting it I can protect the rights of many, you accuse me of greed and ego, you really do not get me.


If you wish me harm, wish me to lose money, and wish me not to disclose anything here, then so be it.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: conradelektro on May 28, 2012, 02:12:07 PM
Ego: If one wants to talk about something which one can not disclose? (This seems to be ego.)
 
 Greed: I can protect the rights of many. (Many are greedy. I am greedy.)
 
 Hope: Quenco cannot be improved or simplified, it is by its nature as good as it can get. (Would be the first thing in the world showing these unique properties.)
 
 I have nothing against you. I just do not understand the need of some people to talk about something they do not wish to disclose. It is so very useless. What is there to be said? No intelligent person believes in something one is not allowed to know. The only area where this is appropriate is religion. And if you want or have to keep a secret, the best way to do that is to shut up.
 
 Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on May 28, 2012, 02:41:10 PM
There's no point in arguing about such trivial matters. But to be honest I shrug whenever deadlines have to be pushed back, too many bad experiences and déjà vu's pop up in my head. Deadlines are pointless if they're not respected.. even though rarely a deadline is met in any field.
My personal limit is at breaking the 3rd deadline then I jump off the bandwagon. Anyway I still wish you luck.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: neptune on May 28, 2012, 02:49:22 PM
We need to keep cool heads here. I can understand some of the points that Conrad is making. On the other hand this is Phillips intelectual property, and he is free to do with it whatever he wishes. Personally, I think that as a result of this he deserves to gain financial security for himself and his family. My wish is that he can keep control of this idea, and stick to his business plan to make it affordable, especially to those whose need is greatest. What I would not like to see is that this disappears, or is restricted to "National Security". Phillip, the choice is yours . I hope you choose wisely. As far as I am concerned, the more info you publish on here the better. If you patent it, then the info will be available to those who wish to copy it for their own use, if they are able.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lancaIV on May 28, 2012, 05:29:36 PM
I would prefer the patent application process instead of the "open-source"-method !
It is also your right to receive a real compensation for your scientifical input ,without a monetary limit from my side !

And Mr. Hardcastle, it is not a shame that the first demonstration has to be scheduled !
We know sufficient about time-delay ,independant from the causes : Orbo,Perendev,Blacklightpower,.....  !
This are/has been years of adventure and trial !

Sincerely
                 CdL
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on May 28, 2012, 06:56:28 PM
conradelektro,   I really don't know if you woke up on the wrong side of the bed or just don't have a clue what quentron and Philip are all about.  If you have read this thread you would have to see your statements are completely foolish.  There is absolutely nothing that Philip has written that warrants an attack like you have made. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: neptune on May 29, 2012, 01:20:54 PM
Let us consider a "coke Can" sized device with a 1 cm square Quentron tile, an aluminium heat sink and a small fan. The fan would probably be a small computer fan of about two inches diameter. Does anyone know what the output of such a fan might be in terms of cubic feet or cubic metres per minute? Let us take a wild guess, and say 10 cubic feet per minute . Let us assume that the air temperature is 15 degrees Celsius. Let the output power drawn from the device be 1 Kilowatt. Perhaps someone can calculate from the above figures, what the temperature of the out going air would be.
       How would the situation change if the ambient air temperature was 5 degrees, or zero degrees? Would the heatsink ice up, or the air exit grill?
         Could we use this device as a combined refrigerator and power generator? I have been mentally comparing this device to a peltier module. A Peltier device will only act as a generator if it has a temperature difference across it. So as far as heat is concerned, it has a source and a sink. The Quentron device appears to be unique in that it uses the environment as a source, and does not have or need a sink.
      Lots of questions. Does anyone care to comment?
ADDED LATER.The actual air output from a fan of this size will probably be  between 2 and 10 Cubic feet/minute
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on May 29, 2012, 05:41:52 PM
It would be interesting to know some approximated delta temperatures and power output of a coke can sized device if someone would like to calculate the math.

Fan Specification:
Speed reference: 1800 +/- 10% RPM
Bearing Type: Sleeve Bearing
Noise Reference: 23 db
Reference air flow: 60CFM
Rated Voltage: 12V
Interface Type: 3 Pins
Length: 9.8inches
Size: 2 x 2 x 0.6in(L x W x H)
Color: black

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: neptune on May 29, 2012, 08:04:53 PM
@Hartiberlin. Have you been in contact with Phillip yet about obtaining a sample of Quentron? This is a once in a lifetime opportunity. We are all depending on you. Please do not let us down .
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: cubalibre on May 29, 2012, 10:50:08 PM
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on May 29, 2012, 11:05:37 PM
I would like to see a billionaire whose money was actually helping mankind, and not stealing millions of people, or speculating on wallstreet .


I want to see PHILLIP HARDCASTLE billionaire as a the model for the world, a real super hero, tirelessly fighting for an idea, that fills a need for all humans in the world.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on May 30, 2012, 08:29:04 AM
Conrad had a valid point, but if people (honest) were to keep everything secret this site would be very quiet. I chose to share what was happening and to engage, as far as I could, with people here that have a like mind.


Thanks to those for words of support, somewhat embarrassed by Elisha's praise that I can never live up to.


Many people have asked for some quenco and in time I will do my best to support the members here, but I cannot do much right now, I have posted on the quentron website an offer for a supply of chips, at very high prices, for evaluation by designers and as a means to raise capital for automated production.


I ask those wanting a 1mm2 quenco tile to be patient and I will see about distributing via Stefan some really cheap chips (or free if I can).


I will also be posting next a FAQ page to respond to some of the questions you have asked.


Phil
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: neptune on May 30, 2012, 12:51:55 PM
@Cubalibre. Many thanks for that calculation. As I understand it you are saying that the air temperature would fall from 15 degrees, down to 5 degrees. And the output power would be about 270 watts. That would be absolutely perfect for the electric bike market, and also for the 4 wheel disabled scooters. Remember these bikes and scooters already exist in their millions, and it is just a case of replacing the battery. I look forward to the first round the world electric bike trip without recharging
@Phillip . Do your best as regards getting samples into the hands of the right people. I wish for you everything that you wish for yourself and your family.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: vrstud on May 30, 2012, 05:41:31 PM
Very interesting technology.  Do you have any papers written on its performance? 

This would be a significant discovery if it performs as described.  The applications would be endless.  Once pattented you can license the technology to every industry that produces heat.

Is this a semiconductor device?  If so, what process are you following?  You could try and take advantage of older foundaries with older technologies in order to reduce cost.  Do you have a test facility to quality?  I used to work with a semiconductor test house that would be able to help.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lancaIV on May 30, 2012, 06:17:08 PM
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

Let me correct some numbers :
60 CF= 60 X 0,0283168466 cbm  ~ 1,7 cbm for the massflow ,now divided with 1,36 cbm = qoutient 1,25
1,25 x 272 W = 340 W Power output :  if Delta Temp 10K !

Sincerely
                CdL

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on June 03, 2012, 01:36:47 PM
I have posted new stuff at


www.quentron.com


reflecting my view that quenco must be put into the hands of all peoples as soon as possible, and as cheap as possible


One repeated technical matter that poeple have asked/ misunderstood is that to design a quenco power source (using a 1cm2 Quenco) you must realize that the quenco can operate down to at least -100C, so the thermal flux is from ambient to say -100c, roughly speaking use a delta T of 100k in all calcs, this means that if a thermal path from ambient is via copper on each side of the quenco is 1cm then you have at least 1.6kW of output capability and a momentary power capability many time higher (good if you want to get a motor turning).


We have had a good week with technical stuff and we are back on track for a launch but we will not be able to do all the vid stuff by 11th June, so I will post the actual launch as soon as the video is done.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: neptune on June 03, 2012, 02:32:04 PM
Good on you Phillip. I am sure we are all looking forward to the release of your video. In my opinion, this is even bigger than cold fusion.You deserve health, wealth and happiness. If this makes it to market, you will forever be known as the man who saved the world.
 On your website you describe the experiment with two cubes of water. I assume that you have already done this experiment in your lab. Could you, at this stage, give us a rough idea of the size of these cubes, and how long it takes for the water to freeze/boil please?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: neptune on June 04, 2012, 09:11:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on June 04, 2012, 10:39:11 PM
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.

Your reasoning is fine but you didn't go quite far enough with your logic.

"Since none of these things, like being seized for National Security or agents of the Mossad, have happened to the quentron or its inventor, regardless of patent status .... therefore........ " and then you can state a conclusion.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on June 05, 2012, 06:16:35 AM

Hi,

Will it work? will it fail, drum roll.................... that is for the launch and the vid to tell, I will post it as is on the day, will it freeze in seconds or take an hour? Will I look like a fool? (or should I say a bigger fool than I actually look). Will I eat my hat?


As to being threatened by MIB or other evils, well as TK said, I am here, and so far the biggest problem is that of being ignored when you know you have what everyone has been dreaming of. There are so many people out there that try to trade on the goodness of people that want to find a solution, the noise they make, and the distrust they engender, make it almost impossible to announce a breakthrough technology.


All I can say is that I have taken precautions to release documents if I went missing or dropped dead under mysterious circumstances. There are now many people who know exactly how to make a quenco and they have an NDA with me so if I vanish they are not bound to keep any secret.


I personally cannot conceive why any individual or individual oil company would want to suppress when they can make more money being part of the solution. As to governments, well it just does not add up to me that it is possible or that they would want to suppress energy breakthroughs.


Lots and lots of people are asking me for info via the q contact page and I will reply to everyone in time.


One thing I want to make clear, I am not looking for donations, and I am not looking for investors.


I am interested in talking to people that want to help or people that want to set up production, and my request for an altruistic billionaire is not an offer to sell out but a stab in the dark that someone out there would want to help without consideration of monetary return, after all billionaires have children and grandchildren that will need a viable planet to live on.


Phil
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on June 05, 2012, 11:03:10 AM
The pricing forecast seems to be quite conservative or even pessimistic to some, I wouldn't bet on it. I did notice a bigger monetary aspect in your latest business plan change though. If quenco gets released I doubt it would take beyond 2014 to get a roll-to-roll ALD production line set up by you or by anyone else ripping the technology off. Your prices seem fine for proof of concept and prototypical studies. But these won't last beyond the first few months when pretty much anyone has accepted the reality of this technology and would want to get on the bandwagon ASAP to start "printing" these like stamps by the millions.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: neptune on June 05, 2012, 01:31:57 PM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on June 05, 2012, 06:52:29 PM
Some additional thoughts....   Look at the economical difference between NiMH, NiCd, Li-Ion batteries that are rechargeable versus alkaline batteries.  Rechargeable batteries are hundreds of times if not thousands of times more economical (and don't become as much of an environmental problem) than alkaline batteries.  Yet Duracell, Eveready and others still sell millions of alkaline batteries.  What is my point?  It is that people may be slower to adapt to a much smarter solution than we might think.  That may be a good thing in the short term in that if this technology moves forward first into smaller devices like AA size batteries, E-bikes, and similar things that do not threaten the major energy cartels it could possible get established without creating the wrong sort of attention.  Once established it could then move onto bigger things like cars, home power and so on as it would be a known and proven technology which at that point I believe would be hard to stop.  Just some rambling thoughts. 

    Some more...   My Dad used to say all politicians are crooks.  I thought that was rather a callous outlook way back then but now I would tend to agree.  And if they don't start out that way how many can resist both the huge payoffs (some call contributions) they get from big corporations.  And if that doesn't work then I'm sure in some cases they are given a choice which involves taking a nice sum of money or having their families threatened.   So IMO is it naive to trust that our government will be helpful in getting this into the hands of the people.  You know my answer to that.  A recent article at the top and center of CNN.com (mainstream news page) was titled "Why do politicians LIE?"  I was actually surprised to see that on CNN but once in a while CNN does surprise me with something real. 

   I continue to wonder if it is a good idea to bring a lot of attention to quenco until they are in production in such numbers (million or more ?) that it could not be shoved under a rug.  Yes finding a really altruistic billionaire would be great but I won't hold my breath.  People like Gates and Buffett who might now seem altruistic with all the billions they are giving to charities will simply not want to upset the status quo and I think quenco has the potential to do that - although it would be in a very good way in the longer term.   The Google boys seem to always be looking for ways to reduce energy usage and be greener.  Their energy usage to run those millions of search servers is astronomical.  They built one of their main centers in Oregon where water powered energy (dams) is much cheaper and greener than many areas.  They also were very involved in the Tesla electric roadster.  They might be one possible investor.  The Waltons (Walmart) seems to always be looking to ways to reduce their cost of energy and they do invest in greener solutions.  Just some more ramblings....
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on June 05, 2012, 06:55:25 PM
@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.

Could you elaborate on what you found that lead you to think the situation regarding USA patents has improved since 2003? 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: neptune on June 05, 2012, 07:01:20 PM
Ok, so much for politics and patents, back to technical matters.
 Firstly, we have talk of a 200 volt device for electric cars . That is 200 volts DC. So this unit can not be used in its present form as a domestic power source. This can be overcome by the use of an inverter. Power Mosfets, which are one of the main components of an inverter are plentiful and cheap. Although our mains supply is AC, many domestic appliances actually convert this AC to DC before using it. So in time, when every appliance has its own built in power supply, this problem will disappear.
        Early models of Quenco look like being 2 volt or 12 volt . We could certainly use the 12 volt on an electric bike , either by rewinding the motor to use 12 volts, or by using a DC-DC converter. We may even be able to use the 2 volt version if enough amps are available . I am not sure if we could build a DC-DC coverter to run on 2 volts. Does anyone know?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on June 06, 2012, 06:02:54 AM
Hi,


Quick short post.


People have asked how they can help, that is fantastic and I appreciate the community spirit.


Answer is that I am not sure, what I do know is that I am not going to cope too well after launch if I try and do everything. I am more than ever convinced that I need to form a not for profit foundation that would control all the IP rights. Such an organisation should have a strict constitution based upon sound humanitarian principles.


So I need people that want to provide legal, governance, technical, production, logistics, pr, accounting and many other skills.


I would like those people to be motivated for all the right reasons and they should not have any conflict of interest.


I will set up some pages on the quentron website with some words when I have received feedback from interested persons.


Can you please contact me via the website contacts page rather than the message system here as it is easier for me to manage and respond to.


Lastly, a quick technical response,


I do not know how cheap quenco could become, I can tell you that if you melted one down (so to speak) the materials would be worth about a dime, the costs are machine and labour. I can tell you that making the first ones has been a battle and that I have been given quotes that looked like telephone numbers, I can also say (and will say more some other day) that I have also been given assistance by some very good people whose only motivation was to help make this all happen, ultimately with the assistance of many good and smart people Quenco might well become cheaper than a postage stamp.


Phil [size=78%] [/size]
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: neptune on June 07, 2012, 09:03:35 PM
My main purpose of this reply is to keep Quentron on the front page. The fact that the Quentron web site is in the process of change suggests that we can probably expect more informationto be relaesed very soon .
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on June 08, 2012, 08:10:41 PM
So, is the launch now set for the original June 11 or has it been pushed back as stated earlier?

Title: Possible thermal exchange solution
Post by: Goat on June 09, 2012, 11:05:01 PM
Hi All;

I've been following this thread for awhile and been thinking about the solutions being discussed and then it hit me!

From what I understand Philip Hardcastle mentioned that he could demonstrate that a quenco unit could boil water in one reservoir and in the other reservoir freeze water and produce electricity from the process.

What if there was a pump supplying the correct proportion of hot water to the cold side reservoir to keep it from freezing and continue pumping from there into the bottom of the hot side reservoir  so that you could stop the cold side from completely freezing.

Sorry if this idea is wrong but it seemed a simple solution a minute ago :)

P.S.: If the above idea doesn't work what about a year long ice cube and hot water supply!  LOL

Regards,
Paul
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on June 10, 2012, 02:46:47 AM
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!




Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Goat on June 10, 2012, 03:58:17 AM
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

 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Groundloop on June 10, 2012, 04:22:59 AM
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

 

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on June 10, 2012, 11:17:16 AM
On the latest site update it states

Quote
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

http://www.quentron.com/
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Goat on June 10, 2012, 02:12:17 PM
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.

Thank you for clearing that up Groundloop, now I understand.

Regards,
Paul
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on June 10, 2012, 04:35:42 PM
Goat,

I was agreeing with you!
I was only stating that a quenco device seems to have a more direct approach to solving the machine you were talking of.

If I understand this correctly, heat will convert directly to electrical energy in the quenco chip. The heat causes a charge to accumulate but if you do not use it (or no current flows) then no additional heat can be converted to electrical energy.
Only when you deplete the charge will more heat be converted to increase the charge again. So if you disconnect the wires from the quenco chip, it stops converting heat to electrical energy and in essence stops cooling.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mscoffman on June 11, 2012, 04:41:00 PM
To be honest we already have 1/2 the model of this process
it is called an endothermic chemical reaction which absorbs
environmental heat and produces chemical reactants. But none
so far that can reprocess the reactants to upgraded energy
and then keep themselves going that way. They all stop. Also
practically, impurities will build up in a chemical reactor and these
eventually deplete or block the reaction.
 
:S:MarkSCoffman
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: cubalibre on June 12, 2012, 12:31:43 AM
Hello

I think it is more like the Seebeck effect with electron tunneling and new material combinations as atomic layers; Cu, Ni, Al, Wo ...? Please take a look in wikipedia.

Regards, cubalibre
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on June 12, 2012, 04:12:12 AM
The Seebeck effect is almost like the Quenco device except I think it's probably closer to a charge polarized material. Where electrons with higher kinetic energy migrate through a barrier because of the polarization. Mainly because the Quenco chip does not require a cold side to force electron migration.


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: vrstud on June 13, 2012, 05:30:06 PM
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.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mscoffman on June 13, 2012, 09:30:18 PM
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.

@vrstud
 
Your right...Maybe he ran into some "technical" difficulties?
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on June 15, 2012, 01:17:14 PM
QUENCO necessary applications in order of priority


1 - Homemade electric generator (consumption of 500 watts to 9000 watts) Quenco 48V 200 Amper, more than enough. Version warm climate, cooling the house, version cold weather, cool outside air.


2 - Electric Bikes (consumption of 250 watts to 500 watts), Quenco 12V 40  Amper, more than enough.

3 - Computer power supply (consumption 200 watts to 600 watts), Quenco 4V 150 Amper, more than enough.


4 - Bulbs LED (consumption of 20 watts), Quenco 4V 6 Amper, more than enough.


5 - The Electric Car (100kW accelerating consumption 10kw sustained velocity), Quenco 200 V 500 Amper or 50 of 200 V 10 Amper, more than enough.

Projects that could sponsor the Foundation:

1 - Integral Education, teaching human beings to think, work together and with nature, as http://ariresearch.org/ (http://ariresearch.org/)


2 - local manufactures of Hydroponics systems, tubes, mixers, drivers, all open source.

3- Extract water from air, to drink.

4- The zero water electronic toillet, use water from air and compost, no water in, no drainage out, like http://www.ecoethic.ca/files/mulltoa60_specs.pdf (http://www.ecoethic.ca/files/mulltoa60_specs.pdf)

5- The open source electric motor, (http://www.flynnresearch.net/technology/PPMT%20technology%20white%20paper.pdf (http://www.flynnresearch.net/technology/PPMT%20technology%20white%20paper.pdf) )

5 - The car opensource, http://www.wikispeed.com/ (http://www.wikispeed.com/)


6 - The community development kit, http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Main_Page (http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Main_Page)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on June 24, 2012, 10:42:57 PM
Bump for a very very hopeful technology.   Are you still with us Philip?    I see quentron.com now has a brief summary of the Quenco and a wonderful statement of intentions for it. 

........................,,-~*~,,
......................./:.:.:.:.:.|
......................|;.;.;.;.;./
......................|.;.;.;.;.|
............._,,,,,_.).;.;.;.;.|
.........,,-":.:.:.:."~-,;.;.;.|
........(_,,,,---,,_:.:.);.;.;..",,
......,-":.:.:.:.:.""-,,/;.;.;.;.;.",
.....(:.__,,,,,,,,,___);.;.;.;.;.;|
...../"":.:.:.:.:.:.:¯""\;.;.;.;.;.,"
....\",__,,,,,,,,,,,__/;;;;;;;;;/\
.....\.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.);;;;;;;;;/:\
.......\,,,,,---~~~~;;;;;;;;,"::::\
.........."""~~--,,,,,,,,,,-"::::::::::\
...................\::::::::::::::::::::::\

Just in case this doesn't come across right that's a big Thumb's up in ascii art  (old school Internet :)  )
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on June 26, 2012, 05:53:16 AM
Thanks for the thumbs up.


Quick update.


I am awaiting a phone call this week to tell me the news I have been waiting for for 2 months, but if the guy lets me down again then I am booking a flight to Cambridge Massachusetts to get the batch done by a 2nd source.


A number of people have been talking with me re setting up production units in Europe and the USA, and also some indication of a facility in South America.


I have a few people doing creative and engineering work and doing thermal modeling, nice to have such stimulating input while I have been twiddling my thumbs.


Have just had some very interesting early conversations with a humanitarian related group and I am having a conversation about food growing applications using Quenco to control temperature and to collect water and produce ammonia fertiliser by electricity.


I apologize to the many that have asked for a tile and to those that asked to buy one, I simply cannot say when until we can set up a pilot plant, no doubt things will accelerate once I can distribute the tiles to testers etc


To those that wonder if this is all sc-fi, all I can say is that there are a few of you that have received Quenco IP, and though not allowed to divulge secrets they are free to say to others if what they now know speaks the truth.


Soon is going to be sooner than the skeptics think, but every day to me is like a Chinese water torture.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on June 26, 2012, 06:07:38 AM
Good to hear from you again and yes sometimes you're at the mercy of others or even fate, I hope you'll pull through. But I'm sure you will if the technology is the real deal. And in my opinion, be VERY careful if/when you set foot in the USA, even weirder things tend to happen there. But as always I wish you good luck.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on June 26, 2012, 08:47:04 AM
Hi all, I am new of this forum. I am interested in free energy and this quentron device seems to be promising. I wonder whether Philip Hardcastle already has a working sample between his hands. It should be of great service for all of us to see (maybe by posting a video which does not show too much for IP reasons) one of this solid state device working as declared.

I think that this way you (Philip) would have less troubles in finding investors to overcome most of the practical problems you are saying to be stuck with.

To me this is so simple.

Thank you all.
Hollander   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on June 26, 2012, 01:04:54 PM
 @hollander, Well then you would be a fan of Mylow and Co.

If you read the posts my problem is not about getting investors, and in fact some of the people from here have made offers that I have not taken up.
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.


I posted here, after making a public apology for not making the launch date, simply because I was being courteous to those that posted a comment. You are welcome to make contact with me on the quentron page so that you can give me your actual name if you wish to talk further.


If people want me to give updates here, I will, but if people are going to be rude and cast aspersions, I will not.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on June 26, 2012, 01:56:01 PM

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.


Wow, what a welcome! Well, my intent was not provocative, and I wasn't rude. I was simply asking the more obvious and legitimate question on earth: Do you already have a working prototype? If yes, it would be great to see a video about its functioning. It would greatly play in your favor, believe me.
I didn't tell about "scammer" or "liar", but given your not very polite reply I must follow the latin old saying:
"Excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta"


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on June 26, 2012, 02:23:54 PM

Philip Hardcastle, is an inventor, well known in this forum of alternative energies. His work is based on the search for direct conversion of heat into electricity.


Quenco is the third design, and previous designs have been very well received in the community for its sound engineering, physical mechanisms used are pretty solid, and their designs are quite innovative.


We know that Quenco requires a series of expensive laboratory equipment, although accessible in any semiconductor company, but not something that can be done in the workshop of a house.


So be patient, as the best strategy for a device as disruptive, is irrefutable proof, and there is nothing more irrefutable proof that an independent third party test, this is what Phillip want and we support him the necessary time.

The force of the nature will help us !
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: neptune on June 26, 2012, 02:55:46 PM
@Hollander. Welcome to the forum.I am sorry you got off to a bad start. Philip is going through a very frustrating time at present. If you read all the previous posts you will realise that Philip does indeed have working prototypes. In spite of the manufacturing problems he is facing, he is still not far off as regards his promised time scale, and is at the mercy of others.
       2012 is the year things are really starting to move, with several technologies on the brink of realisation .
Quentron is special, because it is likely to be the first new technology that is applicable to transport applications. We have waited since the dawn of the industrial revolution for this. Another couple of months is not too long to wait, so lets all hang in there.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on June 26, 2012, 06:19:44 PM
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?  If it does not then I think most people would assume you are here to stir the pot (agitate).   In light of that I don't think you have any reason to be upset.  I fully agree with Philip's reply to your post and he even apologized up front if he was wrong.  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.  Philip is going about this the right way.  If you think this is simple I would strongly suggest you read over this page thoroughly:
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/howtheywentwrong.htm
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: KHaeus on June 26, 2012, 09:58:09 PM
Dear Philip (and all others),

I've been following the whole thread about your Quenco device and technology and I want to state here, that amongst all the OU devices I have come along, this is by far the most thrilling concept. Simply because of its
1. compactness, 2. power density and 3. cost efficiency (at least the prospect to reach very low cost when going mass production). No Rossi E-Cat, Bedini, et al could make my eyes brighter than Quenco and their business models do not convince me, since they are not open enough.

Being neither an electronic expert (my background is mechatronics) nor a "senior" member of the free Energy community, I am not the right person to give technical advices. But as a convinced believer in the existence of free energy and the success of open-source technology, I want to encourage Philip to stay on track and fully concentrate on the most important topic: make the Quenco as cheap as possible. Don't try to develop full-featured devices, let others do this for you and to your and our all benefit.

I am wondering how we could possibly help Philip in this stage? Donations, testing, technical inputs? It should really be in our common interest, that he will not fail just as so many others did before (e.g., Tesla, Hendershot, Schauberger,...). Criticism is OK as long as it is constructive, but what Philip needs (this is my personal opinion) is community support (more in a moral/mental way), otherwise he would not share so many thoughts in this thread. He could have done it all himself and when it is completed say: "This is it. Here is the revolution!". But he did not.

Although I am not a billionaire (not even close  :-[ ) I know many people and companies here in Central Europe who would be pleased to base new thrilling products on Quenco technology? The possibilities would definitely be endless and would certainly reveal mankind from the #1 topic of the future -> free access to energy for everyone in sufficient quantity! Just imagine a Tesla Model S WITHOUT 8000 laptop cells full of Lithium and other rare resources  ;D

Keep on going, Philip. If I could be of any support here in good old Europe, let me know!
- Kurt
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on June 27, 2012, 02:50:10 AM
Welcome KHaeus and thanks for you good thoughts and offers here on the Quenco thread.  I agree with much of what you are saying.  I hope to someday see a car running on Quenco based power.   That would be one of the ultimate highlights that could be achieved with this technology IMO.  I can see myself jumping up and down squealing like a kid when I even see the first flashlight or cell phone running on this tech (and I'm old enough to remember the thrill of the first color TV's :)  ) as that will mean the breakthrough has happened with finally getting a new and better energy device out to the world and into the hands of the public.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on June 27, 2012, 03:01:19 PM
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?

No. I said I am new of this forum, not that I am new of the field. 

Quote
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.

This is my thought: if you already have a working technology (even if it is a prototype), you do not fear to waste time to demonstrate anything. Things speak for themselves. I'd like to buy some quenco chips, but if I were a physicist I would not believe their functioning (absent scientific proofs, so far) and if I were a simple buyer, similarly I would not be sure to spend my money on something that I have even never seen before. It is for these reasons that I suggested to post photos, videos or other.  By the way, I remember that even Hardcastle wrote once on quentron.com that he would have soon posted on his website some videos about hot water cooled down by his device....

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on June 27, 2012, 06:25:20 PM
Currently there is nothing yet even close for anyone that is available to buy and as I have followed and read all posts in this thread it sounds like Philip is working on a well documented release of info when everything is in place.  Something this big takes time and it sounds like he is extremely busy trying to get everything in order.  I believe he has been working on this for 12 years.  He just started this thread about 2½ months ago.  We are all anxious to see and have more on this but if you want things done right it takes time and I believe that is how Philip is going about this.  Have you read this whole thread?  I believe one of the reasons he came here with this announcement was for ideas in deciding how to best go about getting the quenco from a great discovery into a useful device out to the world.  Have patience and I believe we will all be on our way to a wonderful new world of energy and more.   
    I'll add that I'm not trying to speak for Philip but I'm trying to save him time in responding to posts here.  I think after reading everything here I'm very close to being correct in my statements and some assumptions above but if not I'm sure we will hear some corrections as time allows. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: vrstud on June 28, 2012, 10:34:59 PM
Interesting paper discussing the thermo electrics

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinthermaltoe.pdf
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: vrstud on June 28, 2012, 10:49:28 PM
Looks like Philip isn't the only horse in the race.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-29/phononic-devices-s-chips-convert-waste-heat-into-electricity.html

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: vrstud on June 28, 2012, 10:56:53 PM
http://micropower-global.com/

A company in Texas that is doing the same thing. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on June 29, 2012, 01:14:44 AM
Looking at those other ones they don't look anything like the quenco other than the fact they use heat for genereating electricity from wasted heat in certain apps.   It does not IMO sound like it's based on the same concept. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on July 02, 2012, 02:13:58 PM

a efficient solution to get ambient heat to QUENCO (http://mail.yahoo.com/), the article say that is 30 times more efficient that a conventional solution.


http://www.extremetech.com/computing/131656-the-fanless-heatsink-silent-dust-immune-and-almost-ready-for-prime-time (http://www.extremetech.com/computing/131656-the-fanless-heatsink-silent-dust-immune-and-almost-ready-for-prime-time)[/size]
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on July 07, 2012, 06:38:30 AM
Hi everyone,


Here is an update.


The scientists working on fabrication have made a lot of progress and over the next few weeks they should finish all sorts of technical calibrations that will allow mass production. Another highly qualified and skilled scientist is joining the team so things will speed up.


The mistake of June launch was mine by being naive as to all the things that needed to be tested such that a standard method of mass production and optimisation could be developed. I am now hopeful that it will be the first week of August but I will not give a launch date until they have done all their work to their satisfaction. I have 100% confidence and respect for the top level scientists working on this, and I am so grateful they are giving their time for free to be part of this.


Phil
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on July 07, 2012, 09:27:55 AM
It seems like you're jumping into mass production much earlier than previously expected, is this the case or am I misunderstanding your latest status update? I'm also glad you attracted the right people to get this done as correctly and as fast as possible.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on July 07, 2012, 08:52:51 PM
Philip,  I'm glad to hear your update and that's great news.  I was getting ready to contact you through your site as I was getting a bit worried since you hadn't posted in a while. 

broli,  I am just guessing here but I think he may be saying things will be ready in August for a public release (and maybe video?) and that all issues that need to be resolved to put it into mass production will be ironed out so to speak.  I don't think it will actually be in mass production by then.  And I will assume this is for the mass production of the core element rather than a finished power product.  All just my guesses but I would be very surprised if a ready to use power product could be done by August.   I'd love it if there was but I don't expect it to happen that fast. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on July 07, 2012, 09:24:20 PM
This is very good news! As more people get involved, the process to market will move faster.

Sounds like they are dialing in the fabrication process and maybe by August they will have it working well and possibly a few samples could become available for some applications people to work with.

Though the first product would likely be of very low voltage (100mv or so) some tricky design concepts could still yield a few unique products.


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: catbauer24 on July 09, 2012, 08:12:42 AM
Philip - I hope everything goes well for pilot production!

Question on the tech - is the cooling effect only present with electrical current draw from the device?  It would make sense, as the current would essentially replace the heatflow of a heat engine.

In regards to the second law of thermodynamics - stating that heat must always flow from hot "high-pressure" to cold "low-pressure" ignores the fact that theoretically, energy can be transformed into another form with 100% efficiency.  In fact it ALWAYS is, though we say something is inefficient when we transform something into multiple forms of energy, all at 100% efficiency (conservation of energy) instead of just one form.  I'd say, assuming the device does work as advertised, it could be close to 100% 'efficient' converting heat energy to electric energy, though I would go to say physical limitations probably mean there is at least a very small loss into another form of energy - maybe some form of sound or radiation emitted not being converted to electricity.

Also I've thought about heatpumps (as many have I'm sure)... for a cop of 6, if that extra 5 units of heat out could be converted to electricity with 20% or greater efficiency, that creates a 'perpetual' motion machine of the second kind if I'm not mistaken.  In a closed system I suppose that would break the second law as it could reduce entropy if introduced to a system with 100% entropy, but factoring in 'electrodynamics' as well instead of purely thermodynamics.

Basically if all atoms have high kinetic energy (say 1000C) in a closed system, entropy is '100%' and no work can be done!?! To say no heat 'flow' by itself may be true, but does it say that energy can't be converted to another form?  In that sense the other form can be utilized to create a temperature differential and truly break the 2nd law of thermodynamics I suppose.  However even in 'heat death', there is plenty of energy, and at the universe scale at least, gravity can still do work and create temperature differentials by itself (possibly some type of compression / expansion gravity heat-pump so to say).  The law of thermodynamics is a 'wrong model' but useful, as George Box would agree.

I did a search on overunity and appears 'thermotunnel cooling' doesn't have any results:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermotunnel_cooling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermotunnel_cooling)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lancaIV on July 09, 2012, 01:41:43 PM
more like this:
www.prior-ip.com/patent/70834999/ (http://www.prior-ip.com/patent/70834999/)       and instead solar heat   home:  www.nlsemi.com
to know more about magnetic capacitor potentials
enter "Google" with   " Mcap,quantum " 
 and go to energymedicine.org.tw  page11  or enter "Energy storage"  www.arpa-e.energy.gov
   
Sincerely
                 CdL
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on July 17, 2012, 01:40:49 AM
Hi friends!, there is fresh news, please check quentron.com

In the while, update the QUENCO necessary applications in order of priority.
 
1 - Homemade electric generator (consumption of 500 watts to 9000 watts) Quenco 48V 200 Amper, more than enough. Version warm climate -> cooling the house, version cold weather -> cool outside air.


2 - Electric Bikes (consumption of 250 watts to 500 watts), Quenco 12V 40  Amper, more than enough.


3 - Computer power supply (consumption 200 watts to 600 watts), Quenco 4V 150 Amper, more than enough.


4 - Bulbs LED (consumption of 20 watts), Quenco 4V 6 Amper, more than enough.5 - The Electric Car (100kW accelerating consumption 10kw sustained velocity), Quenco 200 V 500 Amper or 50 of 200 V 10 Amper, more than enough.


Projects that will sponsor the Foundation of Philip:
1 - Integral Education, teaching human beings to think, work together and with nature, as http://ariresearch.org/ (http://ariresearch.org/)
2 - local manufactures of Hydroponics systems, tubes, mixers, drivers, all open source.
3 - Extract water from air to drink, Buy and make open source new technologies like http://www.aquasciences.com/ (http://www.aquasciences.com/).
4 - The zero water electronic toillet, sponsor a xprize competition, use water from air and compost, no water in, no drainage out, likehttp://www.ecoethic.ca/files/mulltoa60_specs.pdf (http://www.ecoethic.ca/files/mulltoa60_specs.pdf)
5 - The open source electric motor, sponsor a open source solution (http://www.flynnresearch.net/technology/PPMT%20technology%20white%20paper.pdf (http://www.flynnresearch.net/technology/PPMT%20technology%20white%20paper.pdf) ).
6 - The car opensource, http://www.wikispeed.com/ (http://www.wikispeed.com/), and make / sponsor the open source universal conversion kit!
7 - The community development kit, http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Main_Page (http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Main_Page) 
8 - License the super heatsink for open source  http://www.extremetech.com/computing/131656-the-fanless-heatsink-silent-dust-immune-and-almost-ready-for-prime-time (http://www.extremetech.com/computing/131656-the-fanless-heatsink-silent-dust-immune-and-almost-ready-for-prime-time)


The electrification of the car is low priority because the release of QUENCO will lower the price of the gasoline significantly.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lancaIV on July 18, 2012, 10:01:18 AM
Hello Elisha,
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 !

Sincerely
                CdL
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: neptune on July 18, 2012, 06:10:00 PM
A surprisingly high percentage of car journeys are only 3 or 4 miles long. Replace the car for these journeys with an electric bike, which uses a battery only one tenth the size and cost of an electric car battery.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: catbauer24 on July 21, 2012, 08:33:55 PM
Site down today, title: "CLOSED - X".  Temporary maybe?  Maybe too distracting for Philip, or trying to hide from PESN coverage to save credibility :)

Just some thoughts for when (hoping!) this comes out... people will say "Tesla's free-energy rediscovered".  It is my strong belief backed by historical evidence that while Tesla was a genius man and inventor, he didn't have any form of energy harvesting from the environment.  He did however put the idea out there that it could be done, although that is a completely different thing.  He berated those who made "Einstein king", leaving the real genius, Newton, in his shadow.  In the same light, Tesla isn't "king", nor anyone else with any contribution.  I personally consider John Von Neumann one of the greatest minds to have lived... and maybe, one who is due much more credit than society gives him today.

Also many may remember when Steve Jobs and Dennis Ritchie both passed away just days apart:
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2011/10/thedennisritchieeffect/
http://www.maniacworld.com/steve-jobs-vs-dennis-ritchie.html

Thank you Philip for replying to those of us personally who asked a few questions!

-Chuck
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lancaIV on July 21, 2012, 09:43:08 PM
www.quantumbattery.ch  show us the problem about to realize nanosphere ideas.
Hope,patience,money and many trials for success.

Sincerely
                 CdL
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on July 22, 2012, 05:54:26 AM
The site was finally getting some good updates and progressing rapidly. Now CLOSED!

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.



Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on July 22, 2012, 06:24:21 PM
The site was finally getting some good updates and progressing rapidly. Now CLOSED!

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.
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. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on July 22, 2012, 07:31:15 PM
Google still has a cached version of the web site and some pages including a brief theory page.  The site was apparently a paid version on Wordpress.  I do hope this is just a temporary down time to add more to the site.  If anyone has a way to contact Philip please PM me. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lancaIV on July 22, 2012, 10:24:25 PM
http://www.overunity.com/5002/hardcastlesolomon-thermionic-generator/ (http://www.overunity.com/5002/hardcastlesolomon-thermionic-generator/)
http://www.ipmonitor.com.au/patents/case/2008902247 (http://www.ipmonitor.com.au/patents/case/2008902247)

I did not know that this is the second trial from
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3125 (http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3125)
http://www.overunity.com/6904/curled-ballisitic-thermionics/ (http://www.overunity.com/6904/curled-ballisitic-thermionics/)
Philip Julian Hardcastle.
http://www.ipmonitor.com.au/patents/case/2011904703

Sincerely
                 CdL
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Kator01 on July 23, 2012, 01:33:33 AM
Hello,

this is strange: The Webarchive just has one entry dated back Feb. 2011. No snapshot in 2012

http://web.archive.org/web/20110201215655/http://quentron.com/ (http://web.archive.org/web/20110201215655/http://quentron.com/)

the domain is owned by a german company named Endmark:

http://www.endmark.de/en/agentur/ (http://www.endmark.de/en/agentur/)

so obviously the domain has been taken over by this company.

But still a Quenco Blog exists:

http://www.quentron.com/quenco/] (http://www.quentron.com/quenco/)

Regards

Kator01
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on July 23, 2012, 05:47:10 AM
It looks like the web page is back and seems to indicate that everything is still on track!
Probably just getting adjusted for the big release.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on July 23, 2012, 06:18:35 PM
Yep looks like the web site is back.  Not much but at least a message that there will be an official  launch in September.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on July 28, 2012, 09:28:32 PM
Someone sure is busy making sure the website keeps morphing every week or so :p. I hope 29th of September will be the final date which is quite a push back from the first announced date, but hey what's a few months time compared to decades of energy technology suppression and repression.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lancaIV on August 01, 2012, 05:13:11 PM
http://www.energyharvestingjournal.com/articles/infinergy-micro-power-module-product-family-00001815.asp (http://www.energyharvestingjournal.com/articles/infinergy-micro-power-module-product-family-00001815.asp)

the very little beginning of a great idea

Sincerely
                 Cdl
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: vrstud on August 01, 2012, 06:54:38 PM
That looks like it is an alternative to a battery, not the energy source itself.  It still requires an AC or DC source.


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lancaIV on August 01, 2012, 07:46:54 PM
RF (vibrations) receiver and accumulator function in one package like
http://www.cmoset.com/uploads/TP_AE_00_JouleThief.pdf (http://www.cmoset.com/uploads/TP_AE_00_JouleThief.pdf)  and other ambient power module like Joe Tate invention ,also usefull as earth quake pre-warning advice.
Do not forget  the quenco is 'a thin film  in a stack converter'.

And as source for itself I only know about suns,Pulsars and Quaesars but not on earth ;) !

Sincerely
                CdL
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on August 01, 2012, 09:53:22 PM
There are some more additions on www.quentron.com - some info regarding licensing plans and costs.  I can understand how big this may be but I would think to get it rolling it might be good to offer a lower cost license to the first company or first couple to want a license.  I also somewhat question the annual fee and cost per mm square as something which might deter some interests.  I am sure I haven't considered all this nearly as much as Philip has and he may have researched all this and has found this to be a reasonable startup plan.  But just on the surface it feels like it might stifle startups.  However I may be totally out of touch with the monetary end of all this...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on August 04, 2012, 01:25:14 AM
Hello Elisha,
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 !
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?  :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on August 04, 2012, 01:40:48 AM
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) .
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on August 04, 2012, 04:42:16 AM
If he is/was ready to go into production, that means that he allegedly has working prototypes.  In my opinion you are at the stage now where with the delays and the web site going off line and coming back - that you should ask him for proof of a working prototype.  His credibility is in question.

You really are looking at a too-good-to-be-true story, so the proof is in the pudding.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Qwert on August 04, 2012, 11:33:41 AM
Curlitron: Philip's experiment from 2009: http://www.overunity.com/8306/curlitron/#.UBzkR6N0iko (http://www.overunity.com/8306/curlitron/#.UBzkR6N0iko)


Edit:
Comparing the description of these two devices:

http://www.powerchips.gi/technology/overview.shtml (http://www.powerchips.gi/)
and
http://www.quentron.com/theory.html (http://www.quentron.com/theory.html)

the resemblance is striking even despite Philip's denial ( http://www.overunity.com/12207/quentron-com/msg323676/#msg323676 ); the only difference seems to be in that, that the one uses Tuneling technology while the other uses Termionic: Tuneling is good for low temperature while Termionic is for higher temps.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: aaron5120 on August 04, 2012, 03:30:52 PM
Curlitron: Philip's experiment from 2009: http://www.overunity.com/8306/curlitron/#.UBzkR6N0iko (http://www.overunity.com/8306/curlitron/#.UBzkR6N0iko)

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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lancaIV on August 04, 2012, 04:09:28 PM
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) .

Hello Elisha,aloa Caracas,
I eat chips ;)   pro-v/b-avelmente de p/b-atata ,my PC has got a chip  ::) de silicio  and I hope that the quenco mild hybrid kit assembly will be very -mucho,mucho - cheap  :) para todos iguallés e desiguallés hombres deste mundo

Adeus é Adios con un chip-chip-hurray na voca loca
                                                                                              CdL
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lancaIV on August 04, 2012, 04:24:29 PM
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

But is this not the typical behaviour on p-n layer by photon entrance,
stimulating the copper electrons,
accelerating the current stream -north/south earth force orientation dependant,

the second sketch only showing us - 2dimensional- the 3/4dimensional rotating-spiral-form-like movement ,
a"flow" like a tornado - the copper: the Auge,Kalmen
.
from thesis to idea (not mine)

http://www.arminwitt.de/hoegl.html (http://www.arminwitt.de/hoegl.html)    from UT Batelle Institute Europe
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=US&NR=5902416A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19990511&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP (http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=US&NR=5902416A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19990511&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP) easier to read for somebodies  ::)

and from Curlitron http://globalfreeenergy.info/2009/11/16/curlitron-proposed-experiments/
 to Mr. Dr. Hoegls http://www.arminwitt.de/elfino.html (http://www.arminwitt.de/elfino.html)

Sincerely
                CdL
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Qwert on August 05, 2012, 07:39:53 PM
In post #171 I wrote: Tunneling, Termionic technology. Of course, it's not TECHNOLOGY, only PROPERTY (PROPERTIES).
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on August 06, 2012, 03:46:13 AM
Hi All,


To the guy that says my credibility is in trouble, you have my email, my name, some here also have been supplied other confidential info, I have kept people informed as much as I can given the laws governing intellectual property etc, I have asked nobody for a penny and even turned down a lot of offers of money, so given all these things I think it is a bit rich for you to question my integrity behind your mask of anonymity. I have given on the quentron.com website key dates of things and have given out a lot of info about quenco short of making a premature launch.


As to the website going off air that was something that was a delicate and private matter now resolved. Nothing to do with my credibility or quenco functionality.


A launch is a launch is a launch, I do not intend to be niggled into a lot of pre-launch dribs and drabs, and in my experience if I present anything it will be attacked so the smart thing to do is to present independently verified work in the form of signed reports by known professors of Physics from know and respected institutions.


Anyway, enough on that subject.


As to what some reckon Quenco is, i can assure you it is not CoolChips technology, though I have over the years had a few conversations with them.


It is not Curlitron, nothing like it.


Quenco is the result of finding solutions to 3 problems / needs that almost by miracle worked out right, a bit like the existence of life on Earth, but for all 3 things being possible Quenco could not have worked.


Anyway things are going very well and the launch date might be brought forward by a few weeks (or not), but it will not slip.


Regards
Phil



Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Qwert on August 06, 2012, 05:39:15 AM
...   ...

Phil, you are not obliged to reveal anything. However, peoples' natural behaviour (believe it or not, it's not just your behaviour) is to get know, and to get it NOW(!). Tracking info available on internet,  your behaviour seems somewhat weird: you put some info on numerous sites (including your own) and after a while you remove that info. My conclusions base on that behaviour. What to think, if you say that "It is not Curlitron, nothing like it", but one entry hint on your site suggest Curlitron (among others)?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on August 06, 2012, 06:07:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lancaIV on August 06, 2012, 09:37:48 AM
Solution search :

To read and think about the amplifier-formula : the Biot-Savart law
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=38&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19850314&CC=DE&NR=3330899A1&KC=A1 (http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=38&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19850314&CC=DE&NR=3330899A1&KC=A1)

and to realize this  as Boltzmann absolute  "black  "(w)hole" body".
                                                                               black also called dark, anti-matter=shadow + the motion/the wind-ing
                                                                                                                         german:    Schatten                              - wind   
     
to realize the overestimation of expressions by us "intelligent"people,

                                                    "Super-/Hyperraum/Hyperspace/Hyperro(o)m",the Makro-Kosmos

( hyper= greater /bigger as great and super,it is the sphere above my/our personal possibilities to work
out ideas with my/our human body and I / we have to work it out with instruments or machines,
 in the the makro-space and micro-space,calling this Micro-Kosmos now:     
                         
                 from ulterior/inferior                        "Ulter-/Infer-Raum( engl.:Space or ro(o)m )/",the Micro-Kosmos .

                                                                             

                                              sono-/accustical            bandgap:        ultra-/infra-sonic
                                              lumniszends                  bandgap :       ultra-/infra-red


                                   mef emf fem  fem         motion=(Eigen)spin         conversion


                                    black (cold=slow motion but >0 )/        white(hot=high velocity motion )
                                                  symboL                 y in  -g/ y an -g 

                              internal : Fleming-Eigenspincycle movement orientation-rule
                                                                               and 
                                                        Lenz-Eigenspin-cycle orientation orientation -rule
                             ( probably ,serious thinking: with an okzidental moving  orbit ?)
           
                               
                   calling this an:                 all ambient  particle motion  converter
                                                                                   Teilchen-Welle
                                                              all:     organic and anorganic particle motion
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solution offer:

                                        borealis.gr has only power- or coolchips,

        Mr.Hardcastle has the 2-in-1 :hot and cold-power-combination-chip ,   
     
        working like DePalma/Tewari N-Space- trap-Machine :

        also converting the matter decay motion=beta voltaic,

        earth seismic  continental movement like Joe Tate module
 
       and body( for pace-maker/ear amplifier et cet....) brain motions ( no comments  ::) ??? ,endless )

        finally   a  http://www.rexresearch.com/hooper/hooper1.htm (http://www.rexresearch.com/hooper/hooper1.htm)       
        antenna,rectenna and converter
 
       as  QUENCO , all this in one pack-age.


        Space,quantum physical the Minkowski 4.Welt,Raumzeit  :       http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski-Diagramm (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski-Diagramm)
        SPACEKRAFT

      -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     analog this evolution in history:
 
        knowing the spanish history  about Falangista and their symbol :
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Bandera_FE_JONS.svg&filetimestamp=20110426002145 (http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Bandera_FE_JONS.svg&filetimestamp=20110426002145)
       Renaissance from the roman history,this symbol not representing the force from/for the tribun,
       but  from/for the consul :
                                                   german,das Rutenbuendel, representing the sun.
         Julius Gaius Caesarius.
         Neptunus,Zeus,the flash.

                                                    Meaning: all the power- in one hand, also included: thumb up or down.
                                                   
                                                     But sometimes it is better to use both handes,not only one
                                                             and if we close the - both- "Falangista" parts
                                                                  we get the sonofusion device.
                                                                          el TOR-O-IDO
                                               
 I think Mr.Paul Hardcastle you viewed  the 'fiction :as reality ' movie with an actor
named Christopher Lambert ,Hollywood gave an example for power concentration,virtually/artificial
But what would be the mission from an ' Highlander II ' movie ?
                                                                                                      Highlander       
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Qwert on August 06, 2012, 02:16:46 PM
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.

@Lumen, you are right. Mea culpa.
We'll see pretty soon (if he won't move the term again).
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on August 06, 2012, 06:10:54 PM
Philip,  Thanks for giving us another update here.   There will always be the 'doubting Thomas's'  due to many past bad experiences but I (perhaps an eternal optimist) believe this is going to be different and will be what we have all been waiting for.  It's obvious we need to make changes now more than ever for this planet.  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!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on August 06, 2012, 07:57:38 PM
I'll make you guys a deal.

From what I understand the current status is that we are expecting the announcment of a new launch date "within a few weeks" and the launch date will be "within a few weeks" of that.  There is a feeling of confidence about this.  Agreed?

So the deal is if there are two more announced launch dates that aren't met then I will give you my honest appraisal of this proposition and what transpired on this thread.  Or the same thing if nothing happens by the end of this year (that's almost five months from now).  Or, the same thing the moment Philip mentions "2013."

Does that sound fair?   :)

And of course if everything happens as (soon to be) promised, then I lose the deal and we are all winners.  They are going to suck the heat right out of the bedrock and that will power our society.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on August 06, 2012, 08:09:39 PM
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!

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on August 06, 2012, 08:25:30 PM
A Quenco system would not produce any carbon byproducts.  It would produce cold cell phones though.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on August 06, 2012, 08:36:46 PM
A Quenco system would not produce any carbon byproducts.  It would produce cold cell phones though.

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on August 06, 2012, 09:02:45 PM
You are right, I didn't think about that.  Many electronic devices cold be nearly self-powered like that and only have to draw in a small amount of external thermal power - if it works.

Anybody see a preliminary or released spec sheet for this device?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lancaIV on August 06, 2012, 09:13:34 PM
A Quenco system would not produce any carbon byproducts.  It would produce cold cell phones though.

A Quenco chip not,you are right.

A Quenco system ?
Quenco chip could become a carbon and byproducts generating machine energy source part.

Creating new material matter,when there are no more natural resources .
Look what "Curiosity" does actually on Mars - by L.A.S.E.R. melting - and spectralanalysis and think reverse !
matter/materia2light and light2matter/materia.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: slapper on August 06, 2012, 09:55:23 PM
my experience with wafer fabs is they are almost always late with their lead times. and this is with one of the largest fabricators in the country. it was for an amr sensor for currency detection and it wasn't the most conventional geometry. after completion about 1/3 of the sensors failed. some things can't be helped on the first run. the smaller wafer fabs were worse. i can only imagine what philip has been going through. the start-up costs are steep but you get a good number of die for the minimum number of wafers they'll produce.

even though i'm an open source'r in the free energy field i like the direction philip has decided to take on this. i don't think he should release any proprietary information on a project like this. the upfront costs are to high. if he did publically release the information there would no incentive for investors to put money into start-up costs.

if anyone is interested in where philip is coming from look at his previous posts from years back and see what he has published in the past on his website by searching the wayback machine.

take care.

nap
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on August 06, 2012, 11:21:22 PM
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.

I agree and also am not a proponent of man made climate change but I think this will help from several angles in the long term.  Not all electricity used is 100% converted to heat though.  Some becomes light or RF or simply motion.   Man made or not the stats support that we are having a noticeable increase in warm weather in the last couple years.  It's been a rather sharp uptick in a short time. 

Then there's Milehigh - the eternal pessimist....
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lancaIV on August 06, 2012, 11:47:34 PM
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.
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: fritz on August 07, 2012, 01:42:49 AM
This is a feedback cycle.
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)
I got pretty hot about the quentron - but I think that the awareness of entrophy is essential for building such stuff.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on August 07, 2012, 10:47:12 PM

I understand that some are skeptical, and we know the reasons, many scams have appeared, some have made ​​videos with hidden cables, some only with edited video tricks, none has given a test by a third party, and always retrace the date of testing public, Steorn is the best example. Even some of us have fallen into his deceptions and lost money, I am one of those.


But Philip is different, has not asked for any money, and their designs have a very solid theoretical basis, that makes it very different, and separates it from fraudsters we have seen in this medium.


We just have to wait a few weeks more.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on August 08, 2012, 01:22:48 AM

Quenco applications are enormous as well as its impact on society.


We will have cell phones that are not heated, with processors producing heat and this heat feel Quenco convert to electricity, making the processor run faster consuming more electricity, producing more heat, which will become more Quenco electricity. In the end, it will be only the problem of how to bring the heat Quenco processor, the first solution is to make the SOC (system on chip) with a metal sink Quenco connected to, the following designs integrate Quenco square micrometers, dispersed throughout the SOC design surface.


Any manufacturer of microprocessors, Quenco need a license to manufacture its chips powered car.


The motherboards will be made smaller and not need space to dissipate heat, and have less to regulate the voltage components such as capacitors, power mosfets, resistors, etc..


The processors will be made to the maximum possible speed, not more fans, only passive heatsinks get some heat from the environment.


There will be little difference between a computer processor and the processor of a cell phone or a video console.


The electric vehicles will be made very cheap for the $ 40,000 to $ 15,000, will be more lightweight and maintenance almost nonexistent. Goodbye to the radiator and liters of water, goodbye to the alternator to the battery goodbye, goodbye to oil change, goodbye to the engine overheating, goodbye to the air conditioning compressor, goodbye to the water pump, goodbye to the station gasoline.


The electrical appliances will have no wires, no need to recharge, no more buying batteries and toxic waste, no more sulfated batteries damaging our equipment.


A new generation of planes will emerge, able to fly indefinitely, no more planes to $ 200,000, welcome the $ 40,000 personal plane, see http://www.facebook.com/pages/Synergy-Aircraft/112353422181543


Bulbs that do not require electricity, powered, the LED bulbs problem is heat dissipation, which means they have to be spaced about sinks to reach 100wats, this is solved with Quenco and also no longer will use current, or cables , only a wifi connection to be switched on and adjusted the color of light and power.


Water extracted from the air, deshudimidificadores traditions or modern technologies as http://www.aquasciences.com/


We will be able to see new things, such as aerial mobile homes, manufactured homes imagine, designed to be transported by air to its destination in time.


Zeppelin powerful, able to move large amounts of cargo without the need for runways.


New vehicles for amphibians, new aircraft boats, houseboats, personal quadcopter, etc..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lancaIV on August 08, 2012, 10:27:42 AM
Elisha,you are writing about a social impact -your inside view  outlooked as human society re-and foreward view.
But there is more than only "man's/mens world" :

Our bio-system -weight related-with humans had an 1000:1  quote
 ( literature source  Time-Life-book :"Plants" ,their dates I think from the sixtiees, now -with the population growth dynamic from +/- 4Bill. habitants in the     60' to 7Bill. 2012                  an other relation) !

  it begans in a Club of Rome,ringing the alarm-bells,1972.
  enough,there is not more great potentials of growth !
  beware of the planet,the biosphere,the consequences

Elisha, a radio wave emissed by an radio station and absorbed by an ambient energy converter like
ambient/atmospheric energy converting modules will not reach the expected radio station audience and "clients".

Our cellular Nature communicate wire-less with radio waves from different frequency band gaps >n 0Hz(cell up pulse sequence /cell down pulse sequence per sec :  breath it in
                                                                              and breath it out,
                                                                            the swinging Breeze) :

                            >0Hz (Hz= Hertzian wave/"Swing")                 ~                            >0°K

                                                                     total movement absorption                                                         
        no more wire-less communikation when there will not be an frequenz gap absorbing limitation
        human -up to cell-comunication and other biological ?!-mission transmissions
     
                     where is the priority in this "free movement world"

                             free communication or free energy : a census is needed-individual and common/public
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Going back to ur- ugarit -Babel/Babylonia ( written !   spoken :?))
                                               the twist and zwist-Opus
                                               
                   thinking about mene and mono and tekel ,with fanal: Menetekel,Belsazar
                                               making a census : validating pros and cons
                                  in german Gueterabwaegung,ausbalanzierend,balance

                                            using a " virtual " l'yra/ira/Harfe/harpe:
                                            knowing the Amplitude
                                            defining the lines,gaps                               
                                            the (k)nodes/knotes(like in Bolivia the kipu)                               
                                            the (k)nodes-key and the fixing of the key-zero-point   
           
                 Music has a text and a melody, for so called e-or u-music,in german
                 It has a bell function. a. Bell-o gallico.
                                                       b.the morning wake up

               It works like a weapon: Ex-Pres. Fujimori Embaixada en Lima/Peru Loudspeaker-Counterattack
                                                                                                                                            contra "sendero luminoso"
   
                or doing counter stupid parents a"  Rave.live ambient "with Punk-house music on the turntabl,
                loudness max..
                         


                    Shouting,crying,laughing,singing are physically defined movements,
                    culturally also signs for humanity,the e-motions                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                 
Parents natural call:  (uwaelb-uewaelb : we write this help) to energy : call2energy
they died,not receiving the medicine
Babies  natural call :   (uwaeh-uwaeh)                                      to energy : call2energy
Baby died,hungry and thursty
The hushpuppy call: wuff-wuff ( we-humans-mean:barking to energy ): call2energy
neighbour could rescue

                             Shouting for: god/the wife/mother  in heaven  the el all ,an s.o.s. situation   

                                                                          all  Shout2energy               
                             
                            touching humans is movement and emotion
                            heartbeating is movement and emotion                                                     
                            exspectations/visions are movements and emotions.   
                           
                            all energy is movement is speak is signal is emotion
                                                                                                                          in many differing dialects and formations
                                                                                                                           colors and dimensions     
                       
                           This all 2energy ?

                                To understand use your sins and sense ,an multilingual- translator or an Poly-Photo-/Phono-graph.
                                before you -like Midas - change this all 2energy,what we call live and living behaviour
                                Does this matter ?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: vrstud on August 10, 2012, 08:31:51 PM
first samples today.  Would love to be in Australia right now to help with things.
 ;D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on August 11, 2012, 04:18:25 AM
first samples today.  Would love to be in Australia right now to help with things.
 ;D
Yeah really - me too.  Can you elaborate on what you heard about first samples being available? 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mrsean2k on August 11, 2012, 11:39:20 AM
That's just the timeline according to http://quentron.com/launch.html
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: vrstud on August 17, 2012, 10:38:39 PM
He Phillip -

Any update on how things are going?  Devices behaving as expected?  How was the wafer yield?  Lots of people eager to know how things are going and if there is anything we can help with.

Chris
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on August 18, 2012, 01:51:43 AM
Phil has plastered his web site with the following message:


***
There will be no release of information or data relating to the laboratory and production work until after the filing of full patents. No questions will be responded to on such matters.
***


It looks to me that this means
- He will not answer further questions until the patent is filed.
- He has nothing positive to report yet.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on August 18, 2012, 09:57:26 PM
Sorry to see this is not finding another way to get into production.  A little clip out of Ash's Panacea-bocaf.org website article "How they went Wrong" : 
"People are still being removed

Here is a very good reason for this individual to be removed. In June of 2002, U.S. Patent 6,404,089 for the "Electrodynamic Field Generator" was issued to Mark Tomion, president of Archer Enterprises. To the best of our knowledge, this Patent is the first in the world for a truly all-electric power plant.

Mark Tomion

AESI is confident that our prototype 24kW air-cooled StarDrive Generator† will during certified testing exhibit a net input COP approaching 200 [or, a 200:1 ratio of net output to net input], and we can now show where the corresponding "net output COP" (the ratio of net output to gross input) is reasonably projected at ~24kW / 0.216kW or 111:1. Such a successful demonstration may soon open up incredible new opportunities for both private and commercial concerns in applications which could never be cost-effectively (or profitably) developed to date.

AESI's 24kW EDF Generator

Perhaps the greatest advantage the EDF Generator may have over almost any other over-unity device now known or proposed is that it is fundamentally linearly-scalable — including the liquid sodium coolant system! We have designed large "Thermal Unit" plants that will produce electrical power continuously at 60 to 720 MW output levels, without requiring normal 'fuel' of any kind, and their permanent magnet banks will never need to be remagnetized! The only operator input energy these unparalleled free energy devices will require during their entire in-service lifetime is that initially needed to bring the rotor up to speed (and the thermoelectric elements up to operating temperature)

The Electrodynamic Field (EDF) Generator is a patented high-voltage DC motor-generator, the most remarkable feature of which is that it produces in operation a high-energy electrodynamic field [or quasi-coherent DC corona or arc discharge] which completely encloses the machine's conductive housing.

AESI's 24kW EDF Generator

MARK R. TOMION FERGUSON CORNERS- Mark R. Tomion, 51, died unexpectedly Friday, June 19, 2009 at his home. A memorial service will be held Tuesday June 23 at 7 p.m. at the Kenneth J. Perkins Funeral Home in Gorham. Burial will be in Shuman Cemetery.Memorial contributions may be made to the Yates County ARC, 235 North Ave, Penn Yan, NY 14527. Reference. Here is the last remaining mirror of his old site. His web site is now gone and so have his research papers.

One more for the record. Free-Energy Battery Inventor Killed at Airport? Official statement cites "natural causes" but others familiar with the disruptive potential of the inventor's technology to the existing power structure consider it a probable assassination.

"… On Nov. 11 2007, inventor of a revolutionary, affordable, clean energy technology, M. DeGeus was found slumped in his car, totally unresponsive, in the long-term parking lot of the Charlotte Douglass International Airport in North Carolina. …" He was apparently on his way to Europe where he was to secure major funding for the development and commercialization of his technology, which could make oil obsolete. …""DeGeus was the inventor of a thin wafer-like material/device that somehow specially aligned the atoms or electron currents ongoing in that material, so that the wafer produced a constant amperage at a small voltage – continuous real power, or in other words a strange kind of "self-powering battery". "

Just a couple of the hundreds of known cases....     I truly hope this kind of ending can be avoided but it's a sticky path the follow in getting a patent without these sort of troubles.  It would be naive to think the energy cartels and big oil will not try to stop this by any means possible and I have no doubt they control much of our governments. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on August 19, 2012, 01:07:54 AM

I think it's a bit too early to pull conspiracy theories out of less illuminated places.
Phil is still alive(AFAIK) and it certainly wouldn't be in his interest to be associated with conspiracy theories etc. Let's just wait and see. Soon, etc.   
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on August 19, 2012, 04:00:01 PM
Hi All,


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. The cloak of secrecy that has become apparent is not an indication of anything bad, but it is necessary that I keep some secrets until after the full patent filing.


Please be assured that my intentions are to maximise the benefit for the people, not to make mega bucks for myself.


I know some will feel this is some sort of scam or false claim of a miracle breakthrough that is outside conventional science, it is not, and may I say that some who have been given confidential disclosure would have no problem telling you if this was a scam (without breaking any legal restriction).


So just be patient and please understand that I will not reveal anything of the work on quenco until 29 September, even to friends.


Phil
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on August 19, 2012, 04:02:41 PM
I will not post here again until after 29 sept
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on August 19, 2012, 04:41:21 PM
Just a reminder, which I'm sure you still know all too well Philip but it doesn't hurt to repeat the obvious.

This technology has the potential to completely alter our social, legal, monetary, political and economical institutions as we know them. To what extent exactly, is even beyond me but it's good to keep that in mind. Because to rely heavily on the current broken (and mostly corrupt) business practices will only give you a near term solution. If and when this takes over like a storm and crude oil pretty much becomes a useless smelly black liquid we will see a major shift in pretty much every field I mentioned above.

Patents are (read: were) good in a sensible manner, but patent and copyright law have lost their senses and true purpose a long time ago. What's left is a means for big corporation to pretty much patent everything they see fit, (see for example Apple's infamous "rectangular object with rounded corners" patent or the ridiculous patents on nature itself, human genes) so they can unleash their lawyer army from hell on whoever they see fit. Patents used to protect the little guy, which is far from today's case. In today's situation patents are useless unless you're a patent troll or have the means to enforce them id est you have your own patent army from hell. I would even go as far as saying that patents today truly impede innovation. However I respect your choice for patenting the technology because frankly at this point in time, any solution is a good solution so it doesn't matter what you choose as long as the technology gets released in some way or form. And we can always discuss a more optimal solution when the world gets over the initial shock this will cause :p.

Anyway thanks for the status update, even the occasional "everything is going as planned" is enough until the big party in a month or so :D .
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lancaIV on August 19, 2012, 06:25:57 PM
Broli,I must recuse the projection !
Quenco,like other generators,will be part of the total recycling concept for the future,energy included !
Crude oil and coal parts you find -in pharmaceutics -in plastics -in colours and many other industrial and final consumer products.

Today are just existing 99,9% recycling methods which deliver cheap new-cleaned-entry-proces-material,very clean -like earth explored !

Less aggressivity would help all and also give the today involved branches/sectors to make a strategical change cause this is an universal evolution step: earth-moon- mars - ..... !
Industry employment is time-parallel 99,9% the consumer work-and income place !


Sincerely
                CdL
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on August 19, 2012, 06:48:56 PM
Thanks for the update Philip.  I may have over reacted a bit in posting the worst case scenarios.  I do believe we have reason to fear our government though and the big controlling interests which manipulate it.  I also largely agree with everything broli said.  Hanging out in this alternative energy scene for over 20 years though I've seen so many promising things that have disappeared or never made it to production that I get a bit concerned when I see something like what you have (highly promising in so many ways) that it will end up going the way of so many others (maybe some or most did not really work in ways that would be real world usable).   I know of one inventor who is very aware of these problems and who managed to get a patent on an energy device by carefully wording things so the potential of the device would be obscured from the patent people.  Hopefully some careful wording will be incorporated in your patent(s) so it won't be on their radar. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on August 19, 2012, 07:35:14 PM
I forget if I posted reference to this before but for easier reading I just OCR'd this into text  (had to edit the less than perfect OCR so may still be some minor errors).  This is the infamous USPTO-SAWS memo.  I'll attach the original PDF also which shows the official page stamp.   :

"UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

DATE: March 27, 2006
TO: TC 2800 managers
FROM: Janice A. Falcone, Group Director
Sharon Gibson, Group Director
Robert Oberleitner, Group Director
Richard K. Seidel, Group Director
Arthur Grimley, Acting Group Director

Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent and Trademark Ofce
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

SUBJECT: Reminder on TC 2800 Guidelines for Sensitive Application Warning System
- - (SAWS) Program Reminder
This is to remind our personnel that Technology Center 2800 has in place a SAWS program
based on the following guidelines. All TC 2800 managers must remind their examiners of this
program and its implementation.
T Attached is the updated TC 2800 SAWS program. Please review and disseminate.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent and Trademark Ofce
P0 BOX 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
SPECIAL APPLICATION WARNING SYSTEM
(SAWS)
Technology Center 2800
 March 27, 2006
I. PROGRAM OVERVIEW:
The SAWS program was designed to assist in processing of patent applications identified as
claiming subject matter of special interest that, if issued, would potentially generate high
publicity or would potentially have a strong impact in the patent community. It is also an
information gathering system to apprise various segments ofthe USPTO ofthese patent
applications.
This program applies to all pending applications and reexamination proceedings (reexams).
' As a program to assist in processing of patent applications and patents undergoing
reexamination, it is intended to ensure that the examination standards and guidelines are applied
properly to such applications and reexams that include sensitive or noteworthy subject matter.
As an information gathering system, the SAWS program should identify applications and
reexams that, if issued as a patent or reexamination certificate, would be controversial or
. noteworthy. A '
The initial identication of SAWS applications/reexams is performed by the examiners (may
also include managers and classiers). Therefore, it is important that examiners stay informed
about this program and the identication criteria. '
Independent of the SAWS program, examiners are encouraged to bring to their
supervisor's attention any application/reexam that raises issues that they are uncertain
how to handle. Supervisors are responsible for determining which applications/reexams
proceed through the SAWS program versus those applications/reexams having other issues ~
which are normally addressed by existing examination procedures and established
examination/re-examination guidelines. '
11. OPERATIONAL OVERVIEW:
TC 2800 handles the SAWS program based upon a tiered process-of application/reexams
identication. This process relies on Examiners and SPEs to identify these applications/reexams, _
and a SAWS screening committee to verify their status. The SAWS screening committee
comprises the home SPE, at least one of the following managers in the TC 2800 Quality Center:
Management Guidelines for Sensitive Application Warning System (SAWS) Program
. - 2 -
Cassandra Spyrou, Clayton LaBalle and Hien H. Phan, and another TC 2800 management
ofcial.
Applications/Reexams which have been identied and veried as containing SAWS material are
reported the TC Directors, and as needed, a SAWS memorandum is forwarded to the Deputy
Commissioner for Patent Operations and the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination
Policy prior to allowance or forwarded to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI)
when an appeal is forwarded to the jurisdiction of the BPAI.

A. Technology Center 2800 Practice:
1. Examiners are the rst line of review since they are the most knowledgeable about the
pending claims and application/reexamination issues. Examiners will report potential SAWS
applications/reexams to their SPE. Upon approval of the SPE, the case will be brought by the
SPE to Clayton LaBalle, Cassandra Spyrou or Hien H. Phan for entering the SAWS
l application/reexam number into the TC 28 00 tracking system.
2. Flagging an identied SAWS application/reexam in PALM to ensure that the
application/reexam cannot be allowed or an NIRC issued until the ag has been removed.
3. TC 2800 has established a screening mechanism to remove non—SAWS applications/reexams
from their SAWS designation. This screening mechanism permits a second review and will
result in a recommendation as to whether the application/reexam contains SAWS subject A
matter. The SAWS screening committee will perform the second screening review.
4. Applications/reexams that have been through the TC screening mechanism and have been
identied as SAWS applications/reexams will be brought to the attention of the TC
Directors. The TC Director will bring them to the attention of the Deputy Commissioner for
Patent Operations and the Deputy Commissioner. for Patent Examination Policy.
5. For uniformity and process improvements, a SPRE, QAS, or a SAWS TC-screening
committee must be utilized. A SPRE, QAS, or a ‘SAWS TC-screening committee will be
tasked to periodically review the SAWS processing guidelines and criteria to continually
update and revise the program as needed.
6. Placing a PALM Flag on subject classes, which encompass sensitive subject matter until a
review ofthese cases is performed upon allowance (such as business methods, class 705).
7. A reminder and a11 updated SAWS criteria list will be distributed, at least semi-annually, to
examiners to stress the importance of SAWS application identification. All newly hired
examiners should be made aware of this TC 2800 SAWS program
Management Guidelines for Sensitive Application Warning System (SAWS) Program
B. Subject matter of special interest in TC 2800:
1.  Perpetual motion machines; classes 310 and 290
2.  Anti-gravity devices
3.  Room temperature superconductivity; class 310
4.  Free energy — Tachyons, etc.
5.  Gain-Assisted Superluminal Light Propagation (faster than the speed of light); class 702, 359
6.  Other matters that violate the general laws of physics; classes 73, 290.
7.  Applications containing claims to subject matter which, if issued, would generate
unfavorable publicity for the USPTO, class 84, 702.
8.  Reexamination proceedings involving patents in litigation and:
The court decision/verdict is subject to review by the Supreme Court
The court decision includes high monetary awards .
The technology and companies involved would likely generate high publicity

C. Corps-wide Potential SAWS"subject Matter ~
1.  Applications with a very old effective fling date (pre-Gatt -- before June 8, 1995) with
broad claim scope.
2.  Application with pioneering scope.
3.  Applications dealing with inventions that, if issued, would potentially generate extensive
publicity.
4.  Applications with objectionable or derogatory subject matter,
5.  Applications with inventions that would harm people or the environment, compromise
national security or public safety.
6.  Directors Ordered reexams except those ordered due to failure to considered timely led
prior art or due to prior art citation under 37 CPR §1.50 1."
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 19, 2012, 09:39:21 PM
e2:

Wow!  That is some interesting reading.  I was not aware of this program.  Thanks for posting it.

Bill
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: neptune on August 19, 2012, 10:01:31 PM
Referring to paragraph C item 3, near the bottom of the page. What would be the problem with patenting an item that would generate extensive publicity? So anyone trying to patent a new method of advertising , is a threat to National Security?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on August 20, 2012, 03:50:00 AM
Hi Bill,  That document has been around a little while but it probably doesn't get exposed as often as it should so I thought this was a fair time to refresh people on it. 

neptune,  I'm guessing that anything that would generate large publicity would do so because it has the potential to make large change in our world and thus likely a big change in economics.  So I believe the government would not want anything getting out of their control quickly - thus the potential censorship or more to prevent any sudden huge financial shifts.  If quenco is as big as I think and it's presented in a way that makes it's potential obvious it could possibly make some big waves.  However there have been so many potential new energy technologies announced in the last 20 years that I personally don't think people will take notice that quickly.  I don't know - it really depends on a lot of factors including how the scientific community reacts.  But if you put a shoe box size power source in front of people and it powers a hundred 100 watt light bulbs (10 kilowatts) endlessly or something dramatic along those lines then it could mean big investors, rapid development and huge sell off of investment in things like oil.  Big big changes all over the charts.   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Qwert on August 20, 2012, 07:35:32 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on August 20, 2012, 05:12:26 PM
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.

That might work if you proceeded first with a "documented patent search" to prevent the usual stacking the deck trick.
That's where some company rewords your patent and has it filed at some earlier date by their inside informant.
But then those doing the patent search may already alert them and ...... well, better get a good patent attorney, one you can trust. (if that's possible)

Philip has other patents and already knows the path.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on August 25, 2012, 01:43:18 AM
I see more changes to the Launch web page. I hope this indicates things are progressing faster than anticipated.
It looks like some chips might end up on E-bay at some point!



Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on August 25, 2012, 03:57:27 PM
^ and that point being only one month away.

I hope he truly succeeds because at this point in time failure is no longer an option, either unintentional or caused by an outside "unforeseen" force. He has put the stakes too high for quenco and himself, failure will completely destroy his word and reputation even if external sabotage was at play. The conspiracy nuts would have a field day, the skeptics will yell "I told you so" and the truly honest people will lose hope. This has been shown time and time again across the "free energy" history. This is why the closed source path is so risky, and useless in this field imo, compared to the open source and open development path.

An energy revolution would change the world that we know, something as mundane as money and fame has no role in such a world. Sure it will still be part of the not so pleasant transition phase but in time people will realize they can meet their basic physiological needs AND do the things they love without having to rely on your atypical slavery like "jobs" of today. Local automated organic unlimited food growth, unlimited water supplies, personal flight systems, decentralized communication systems are just a few of examples an energy revolution would usher in. Imo the next bigger thing after an energy revolution is the personal manufacturing field, imagine a personal 3d printer that prints anything you can imagine in any material that you want on atomic nano scale accuracy.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on August 25, 2012, 04:51:59 PM
Broli,

I agree! But the next big thing should have been the first thing and while a super 3D printer is very useful, I would have to rate it at least #3.
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.

The problem with such a short life is it limits how intelligent we can become! By the time a person learns enough to become truly valuable, they are already loosing their health and ability to remember.
If people could live a few thousand years at their optimal point in life, the entire race would be extremely intelligent and may have insight into expanding to other planets which is required or at some point we all become extinct!

Then you could build the 3D printer!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: bugler on August 25, 2012, 08:24:39 PM

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.
But before that is achieved first we have to learn to distinguish psycopath and get rid of them so no psycopath lives forever.


The path for a perfect future is full of obstacles.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: bugler on August 25, 2012, 08:32:00 PM

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.
I will come to this thread a year from now.


Hopefully the world will be enjoying this quenco device but more probably nothing will have come to market and, once more, we will wonder whether the criminal elite, that runs the world, destroyed the idea or whether it didn't work after all.


(btw those who don't believe in conspiracies don't know anything about how the world really works)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on August 27, 2012, 03:18:04 AM
@broli  I agree with you at all, but not in the personal 3d printer, the future is work together in unity.  We will need the new big company, a lot of small family business tightly integrated that work like a big company.


Our best wishes to Philip, we are in suspense to know the good news.


Thanks to a lot of scammers, Philip is under the radar of big elite and corporations.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: markdansie on August 27, 2012, 04:38:15 AM
Don't hold your breath for the 29th of September this is about as reliable as the JR Papp engine.
You will get other excuses for deadlines not being met. This is all conjecture no data on running prototypes.
mark dansie

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: derricka on August 27, 2012, 06:47:18 AM
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)






Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on August 27, 2012, 07:11:30 AM
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)

That's pretty funny, I'm printing it out right now on a giant truck inner tube, so if you are wrong we can all bounce it off your head for fun.
 :o
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: peakprod on August 27, 2012, 08:59:41 AM
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]
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: bugler on August 27, 2012, 02:59:05 PM
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]


Wow!!! it sound what comes after extremely suspicious.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on August 27, 2012, 05:02:30 PM
Well this is fast becoming a get rich quick exercise, licenses have just gone up 10 fold@

Yes, but if you held in your hand the single device that was about to replace ALL the trillion dollar oil, gas,solar,wind,industries and everything related from around the entire planet, what kind of value would you place on it?

This is of course if you live long enough to get it to market or they just steal your patent and say it is theirs, like what happened to Dr Brzezinski.
"He who controls the energy, controls the country!"

If you made 100 Billion a year it would take you 10 years to make what the oil companies make in 1 year! He will probably need to raise his price!

With that kind of money, one could hire a team of the top 25 experts in the field of DNA research, and solve the aging problem. Then a single person could forge the world like no Government has the coherency to do.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: catbauer24 on August 28, 2012, 07:57:45 AM
new Launch page:

Patent Filing                   21st September 2012
Scientific Paper               24th September
Public Launch                 29th September
Patent Publication           1st October

Scientific validation is now a paper (maybe still a validation?).  No mention of availability, limited or otherwise afterwards.  Still, full disclosure in a patent is what's needed most, second only to multiple third-party validations of a device.

@Mark Dansie, you or your team have access to JAP articles?
http://jap.aip.org/resource/1/japiau/v94/i7/p4690_s1?isAuthorized=no

Not sure how many published articles there are about perpetual motion of the second kind up at JAP, that appears to be one however.  Granted totally made-up papers have been published before at other journals (via scigen)... there's at least a chance that article or others have some merit.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: wizkycho on August 28, 2012, 11:51:37 AM
Hi all !
This is not correct theoretically and
It will never be seen on market or enywere else
Nice money, nice commercial approach , nice patent (that is not guarantied to work)
but this has nothing to do with FE or OU.
This is WASTETIME paid by oil companies and such things are all over internet.
 
Turn to FDM from Perihelion Labs - you wan't get any money just knowledge and lot's of Free Energy and OU
 
Igor Knitel
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on August 28, 2012, 07:38:51 PM
It is not surprising to see trolls start showing up.  I see at least a couple so far in this thread.   Or maybe just some seriously depressed former free energy believers.   I'm still seeing WHAT A WONDERFUL WORLD IT WILL BE when quenco gets rolling.   I don't think it's wrong to ask the big $ initially as whoever gets in first is going to likely make the megabucks.  And the prices are certainly not set in stone so if they don't take off I'm sure Philip will consider other pricing plans. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: tak22 on August 28, 2012, 08:19:51 PM
@Igor

You seem to be down on everything other than your FDM which you seem to be talking about in every thread I read today. Just a friendly that this practice is not considered polite or helpful, you should be demonstrating real progress and results, which would then attract the support you're looking for.

all the best,

tak
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Qwert on August 29, 2012, 12:21:39 AM
 A plot scheme from overunity.com:
first, an inventor announces a wonderful working device, only he cannot show details because of a personal or other concern.Then a group of enthusiasts creates around the inventor; they pet their inventor as much as possible coz they know that inventor is verrrrrrrrrry, verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry fragile; in vain, however, because one day a stranger comes and destroys everything witn only one word: the inventor feels resentful and there is no way to fix that. The otherwise intelligent inventor seems to stop being intelligent at this point; it seems like he cannot understand that that group of enthusiasts are quite different people from this single stranger.
This thread is one example. There are more, anyway.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on September 01, 2012, 11:22:52 PM
http://quentron.com/launch.html (http://quentron.com/launch.html)
Quote
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.

A delay by a month, no more Ebay sales and of all countries the USA has been chosen for launch. This is where I start to lose hope.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on September 02, 2012, 01:28:36 AM
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.


You guys that has views of a perfect world where everything just happens according to a divine script are mad, the realities for me is that the single most important thing for the good of all is to get it to mass production as soon as possible.


Slurs against my character bother me not for I know I am as good a person as you could ever hope for, a stream of 100s of Billions will be applied to humanity via a foundation. If quenco was given away and you all saved say $5,000 a year on fuel and power how much would you give to the poor and starving of the World? I am betting only a few of you would give.


I will protect the patent rights of quenco and will get it being mass produced, those that want to lose hope are doing so because the roll out doesn't match your expectations, well sorry about that but before bagging me you all could at least give me a fair go.


Issues of production when talking about a device never built before and a device at a few nm are many, the best intentions in the World cannot overcome all technical issues. Nobody here is interested in 90% resolved issues, you all want quenco in mass production, for sale on ebay and for $1 a kW, you need to be realistic at this point in time.


What I could tell you I cannot for legal reasons alone, after the launch all will become part of some book / biography.


Those friends asking me all the time for quenco update details are not respecting my right to hold my cards close to my chest until the appropriate moment in time, the official launch.


I am packing up my household and moving to the USA to make sure things happen, not because I prefer the USA to Australia, and not because I am selling out. The simple facts are that the USA speaks English and has equipment.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: gravityblock on September 02, 2012, 04:40:05 AM
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.

I agree with the portions in bold above.  However, there is no defense for what you are doing here, since this is an Open Source Research Forum in case you haven't noticed (see the snapshot taken below of the homepage of this website for more details).  You're protecting the patent rights and can't talk for legal reasons.  You have nothing to Open Source, so please go somewhere else or withdraw from any further postings which isn't related to the purpose of this website!

Gravock
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on September 02, 2012, 06:50:23 AM
Hi Philip and thanks for dropping in again.  It's a large and varied group here and some of them are pretty rough.  A lot have been at this a long time and still don't have any good alternate energy sources so some have lost hope and get angry at the things that promise hope then disappear for many varied reasons.   I'm glad to know you are coming to the U.S. but slightly concerned because I believe there are forces here both in private and government that may make things difficult for you.  However I have confidence in your intelligence in dealing with those forces. 

Unlike some who may be trying to squeeze you for info I'm fine (and I think many others are too) with letting it all play out as it will and I will hope for the best and wish you all the success in the world - and your success will be everyone's success (except the powers that be and it's time they let go of their strangulation grip on this world's people).   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: peakprod on September 02, 2012, 08:43:23 AM
Yes their  are many of us that have been trying to get free energy going for years. There are also many of us that have seen inventors bought out and their inventions lost, or even murdered or disappeared. We do not want to see that happen to you Philip.
There are big things happening below the surface at this time. BP and Russia have apparently discovered massive (biological) oilfields (40,000 ft below the surface). They are apparently trying to force the oil price up to $150 a barrel before announcing these oilfields!
There is also much talk of the collapse of the whole western banking system, to be replaced either with a new BRIC based system or a new free republic system.  This could be either very good or very bad for Quenco. Please have  a plan B ready just in case needed, and watch your back constantly.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on September 03, 2012, 05:33:20 AM
The first thing is that I apologize for my comment about posting, what I meant to say is that I had planned not to make any technical posts until after the publication of the patent, what I did post sounds like I was being mean and childish, not the case.


As to what this forum is for, that is a matter for the owner, the posters and the majority. If the only thing on here was open source free energy devices then I have to say it has been a failure to date. If the majority do not want people like me to come here and share my experience on the quenco then I suppose that would become apparent, to date my experience is that most people here are happy that I share what I can. I also want to point out that I have pledged some time ago a good proportion of the money on the OU prize page, so I reckon that gives me as much right as anyone else to post here. 


I also note that I have received a lot of comments here and by email, and those comments have been considered and have aided me in coming up with strategy for roll out. I am looking for a best solution and though the idea of simply giving the technology as open source, or for free is enticing, it just does not add up to be the best thing to do.


I plan to make sure to the best of my ability that quenco will benefit all, and not just the rich. I also want to make sure we do something about CO2 and food security asap, so my plan is to let those that have the money get busy making quenco and themselves a fair and competitive return. I am offering just 100 major licences for high power applications as this class of device requires a lot more capital than the low power quenco, nobody is going to rush in to invest if there are unlimited licences. For low / medium power I am not limiting the licences, this means that everyone that has a killer app for quenco can choose to make the power supply part in house. Of course people like Apple will buy a low power licence and put quenco in all their new products, at the end of the day the new iqphones will be better and cheaper than the present iphones and at the same time a billion bucks will flow to the foundation so that we can fund projects such a power for the poor and food production for the starving.


Rapid roll out of high power to the 100 licences will mean rapid curtailment of CO@ emissions, and we all need that.


For those that come to my defence, thanks, for those that sent me good wishes, thanks, for those that think I am full of BS, that is your right and all I say is that I have never failed to deliver on any technology in the past (I have many products in the marketplace of my invention and design), quenco is real but it is also a difficult thing to hand over until such time as it is can be done without experts.


We have and are doing all we can to overcome technical challenges and I have every confidence we will be in a position to sell quenco on ebay before the end of the year in virtually unlimited amounts (though we hope it will sell for a good price to fund more research).


I admit that some of my prior statements about launch dates and availability of quenco samples have slipped, everything I have said was said in good faith and sometimes things are beyond control. People tell me things and based on that I have made plans, those plans have been subject to revision. The launch date and filing of the patents is not such a flexible thing, they will happen on the dates specified.


Anyway, others will scoff and scorn but all that matters is that we all succeed in this quest.


To those that are upset with me re access to quenco and licences for those without a million spare cash, please wait until after the launch and I can deal with those matters to the satisfaction of most. There will be funds for open source apps, funds for humanitarian uses of quenco, free quenco for researchers and more.........


Regards


Phil
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on September 03, 2012, 06:33:36 PM
Thank you Philip!   That all sounds great.  I'm sure there are a whole lot of people here that appreciate hearing from you and are rooting for you to be successful with all this.  Other than a few vocal sour pusses I think the vast majority here are in support of you and like hearing updates.   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on September 05, 2012, 05:29:01 PM

Philip, receive our greetings, blessings and good wishes.


The skeptics, negatives, pessimists and the rough, all are useful, since some people like me, tend to believe that there are over unity devices, they always make us set foot on earth, because the truth, so far none of those proposed in this forum has worked, some with only partial success, the best things are examples of unexplained phenomena known to the actual science.


And in the worst examples we have been stolen as many others, and I be in the list of who lost money, believing in these tricksters.


In favor of Philip, I can say that has not asked anyone for money and his designs have been very solid from the standpoint of physics. So I believe in Philip.


Philip, if you have to change a date, is right, is comprehensive, it is a new product and as the people say, "the devil is in the details", but please give us a little attention and write us at least every month,  as Quenco is a device that many have hopes.


All The Best, for all.
ELISHA from Venezuela.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on September 07, 2012, 11:39:05 AM
Fraud or delusion. Alas, I do not see alternatives.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on September 08, 2012, 10:56:05 AM
year 1: 100 * $20,000,000= $2,000,000,000
year 2: 100 * ($20,000,000 + $1,000,000,000) = $102,000,000,000

(ignoring the low power licensees)

That has to be the most optimistic growth of a business in history. Be careful my friend, you are playing with fire now, "their" fire :) . Whoever is "advising" you now is as mad as the Utopian posts you read here.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on September 08, 2012, 04:29:30 PM
If this works as Philip has suggested, then it would surly be worth all of the yearly $102,000,000,000.

The problem is this is $102,000,000,000 that someone else is not going to be getting, and they will not be happy!
You know that accidents can happen at any time! Just by chance. To anyone!

Especially in the US where we are accident prone!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Lakes on September 08, 2012, 04:37:10 PM
Yup, bit of a target with moving to the US...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on September 08, 2012, 07:12:07 PM
I was reminded of a movie with Julia Roberts called 'Duplicity'.  It's sort of a big corporate spy vs. spy movie.  Big corporations trying to get each others secrets by hiring ex-CIA agents.  It's a complex movie (spoilers coming up) with a surprise ending in which the big corporation dupes not only it's competition but fools the ex-CIA agents and spy who plotted to con the big corporation out of $40 Million.  All this was over a supposed formula to cure baldness.   While this is only a Hollywood movie I know they often base their stories on the real world situations with a little embellishment.   It all reminds me of just how far big money will go to protect their business and investors.  Food for thought ....
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on September 09, 2012, 01:47:12 AM
Hi All,


I see some fair comments that I can respond to and one accusing me of fraud which I will not respond to, other than noting that it was said.


We have done a fair amount of calculations with respect to licencing, I have had a lot of input from this forum, and I have posted what seems to me to be a fair offer. The facts are these


If all the High Power Licences are subscribed to, and lets be honest in year 1 we might only have 20 taken up, it would take about 30 years of the minimum production to provide enough Quenco to power the World (assuming the first quenco remains in service forever -but if it is built into cars some will not get recycled). If High power licences are issued we have to make sure they are not sat on by Big Oil.


Imagine if we had no minimum requirement, the status quo seeing Quenco was real would simply buy 100 licences and pay 2 Billion a year in order to continue selling 5 Trillion dollars of fossil fuels, that is a tiny cost to them to continue to pollute the World for profit.


We must assume that once a company installs a $50M production plant it can produce at least 10x the minimum volume required, so if they are being bombarded with requests for Quenco I do not see they have any issue on being required to hit the target in year 2.


As to me being met with an accident, well it is a bit like Steve Job said (I paraphrase), death comes to all, so why worry about the risks of today.


As to some saying I am greedy I simply say that if all goes to plan 99.99% of income goes to a foundation.


Phil


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on September 09, 2012, 02:10:49 AM
Philip,  Good to see you checking in a bit more often again.  I was going to say something about the trolls again but have decided to just ignore them now.   Your numbers sound fine and your plan seems good.  I'm sure if it doesn't take off as planned then you can make changes to move things forward. 
I'd just like you to promise me and everyone here to protect yourself in every way possible.  I can't help but think if anything did happen that your associates or anyone with your info might go into hiding out of fear.  The world needs quenco and quenco needs you.   Until things get into production it would be good to take on the mindset of a double agent spy  ;)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: peakprod on September 09, 2012, 02:26:57 PM
Philip, licence fees look feasible, I just hope royalties per sq mm and per sq cm are not per layer!


Good Luck and please watch your back ( and the rest of you!)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on September 11, 2012, 12:33:23 AM
For the foundation to work, it must be completely transparent, not only with the decisions, but with all its daily operation, has to be like a glass house. That is possible,  t[/font][/size]here are open source organizations, that are completely transparent. Beware because like[/font][/size] many foundations will spend a fortune in operation, in wages, are slow to act and his staff do business with the contracts granted. And on top of it, do little.

The license price is good, and in my view is something cheap for companies that are going out to produce, such as Intel, which is a company that has a lot of idle capacity, lots of money, operates on low margins 30% gain, and urgently needs a way to grow as processor sales are down.

Philip, make sure your lawyers drafted well the license concept, should be for each "node" as a giant corporation like Intel has about 8 factories, which should be at least 8 licenses, but more because it can be fabricate huge factories and each need 2 or more licenses because they are huge. Beware that point.

What I notice according to the latest information, is that Quenco have limitations in multi-layer version, and that is producing less power than expected ??. [/font][/size]The unlimited license to 1 watt per mm2, we're talking about 5 Volt 20 Ampere per cm2, which is excellent for all types of portable devices but little for a car application.

But excellent for a single application or skate bike, which is the duty of urban mobility and a priority.

All the best for all.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on September 11, 2012, 01:28:26 AM
Alll this talk about licenses, foundations, conspiracies makes me wonder if the quanton actually exists. Is there sufficient proof that this quanco thing works, or is it pure fantasy?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Lakes on September 11, 2012, 01:33:27 AM
You`ll have to buy a license to find out... ;)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on September 12, 2012, 01:35:05 AM
I would buy a license for ultra-low power quencows that power single LEDs. My plan is to start a Kickstarter project to mass produce eternal LED-powered light polluters just to piss off hobbyist astronomists. My other business model is based upon the idea to use ultra-low power quencums to revolutionize birth control. (Can't go into details here, but the main idea is to harvest ambient heat and use the energy to do something yet unspecified related to birth control, which will in turn and in the long term rid us of the reliance of free energy) 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on September 15, 2012, 02:48:56 AM
Hi All,


Not that it matters but I just thought it was polite to advise those interested that due to the administrative steps required to get a 2 year Visa for the USA (interviews) we have had to change the launch to 19 Nov from 29 Oct.


I am sure the sceptics would have laughed at the date change.


Phil
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on September 15, 2012, 07:50:23 AM
The huge machinery of government grinds slowly - no surprise at this.  And since 9/11 it has gotten much slower for anyone to come into the country.   You may want to consider alternate plans just in case it grinds to a halt.   My sincere wishes it all goes well though. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on September 20, 2012, 03:31:28 AM
Hi All,



We have booked our flights and arrive SF in the 2nd week of October.


So far so good re long term visas but we are ok to fly and the Visa waiver program, which means we that if we do not get the green light for the long term business visa we will have to leave the USA about Christmas time, but in any case we would choose to be home with family then so that is OK, we would then return in January to continue the roll out work.


During October I will be working with some researchers to set up US production and I ask if anyone in the SF area has facilities (a secure office and storage) handy to Stanford that they could loan me for a few months, I would be interested to hear from you.


I have received some criticisms re the money side and I just want to repeat my prior statement that I personally do not seek to profit from this beyond a reasonable return for my efforts, the bulk (probably more than 99.9%) of revenues will go to help provide quenco to the poor free of charge, to subsidise it for the not so poor, and to fund research into new exciting science and applications made feasible by quenco.


There will also be plenty of special free licences made available on a case by case basis, and a supply of free quenco tiles to individuals and  organisations on a merit basis.


it has been a while since I added much to the site but in preparation for the launch and after the patent filing (next week) there will be more and more added, so from time to time i invite you to visit, and leave comments.


www.quentron.com


A few people from here have contacted me and we might even meet up for a coffee in Downtown SF.


All the best


Phil
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mrsean2k on September 22, 2012, 10:35:31 PM
What specific test equipment and qualifications  would someone need to unambiguously test that Quenco works as you expect it to (a) as it stands as of today and (b) as you expect it to be for your release in November?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on October 06, 2012, 08:59:55 AM

Hi All,


First let me apologize to quite a few that I have not had time to respond to this last few weeks, I am v.busy but I will get back to you.

This will be my last post from Australia for the foreseeable future.


The PCT patent is now completed and to be filed on Monday (8th October), it is 30 pages with 5 diagrams, an interesting read, it took the patent writer about 2 weeks of study to get his head around the stuff but I think it is easy to understand (now as written).


I have received offers from a few countries in the last weeks and one before to use facilities to assist setting up mass quenco production.


I have planned a few visits in the USA prior to the launch to meet with some people who want to know more in detail and will be signing a few more NDAs next week.


Thanks for the good wishes from many, appreciated.


Sorry Mr Sean, I am not giving away any info prior to launch, if you want to contact me as you have done before privately you can. In any case everyone knows that the only proof, at the launch or anywhere else, that will be taken as proof is a physical device in the hands of a reputable testing expert, and even better with 3 independent persons. So I will leave my reputation open for conjecture but prove my sanity with the proof at the right time. For those that want to say things about lack of information you should go and study patent law before you judge, of course from Monday I can talk more openly and will be extensively during October but probably not here.


Anyone attending the launch will, I promise, be happy with the outcomes.


Cheers to all


Phil



Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on October 06, 2012, 11:05:40 AM
I truly wish and hope you'll be able to bring this out into the world, that's all there's left to say.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on October 06, 2012, 04:32:05 PM
Hi Friend Philip

My best wishes to you and your family, the eternal God protect you and guide you in the steps you are giving.

On behalf of the entire community of overunity, we thank you for taking the time to write us and keep us informed.

In these times of uncertainty, confict and worldwide crisis, (In the field of inventors)  you are the light of hope in this long tunnel of disappointments.

All The Best,
Your Friend Elisha.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on October 06, 2012, 07:45:59 PM
Philip,  Great to hear from you again and very glad to hear things are moving along well.   What Elisha said very well is what I feel also - I couldn't have said it better. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on October 08, 2012, 09:54:24 AM
Thanks Guys, very much appreciated, it is the good wishes that have kept me going these past 13 years on an at time lonely journey.


Though I always believed in what I was doing and why, I admit sometimes it seemed too big a burden and I almost quit in 2009.


When news of my father and Step fathers death hit me just days before Christmas 2011 it devastated me, especially with my Step father who was a great scientist and my biggest supporter over the years, but it was all the more poignant when I had just made the biggest breakthrough (the jump to high power) but had not had time to fully share the results with him, so the support of genuine nice people reminds me that I have as many reasons as ever to have stuck with this long journey.



Speaking of long journeys only hours to go before I have to suffer the long non stop flight from Sydney to LA.


I look forward to the day when I can enjoy a simpler life on a small organic farm with a quenco powered tractor.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on October 08, 2012, 11:30:17 PM
I am sure your trip will be worthwhile. Safe passage.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: peakprod on October 09, 2012, 11:32:02 AM
Philip, our positive energy is with you, Hope all goes well for you. Feel sure it will. peak (Gold Coast)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on October 15, 2012, 08:17:38 AM
Thanks for all the good wishes.


So almost a week in San Francisco and I have yet to see the Golden Gate bridge. I have spent a few days at Stanford and it is quite impressive. Everyone is V friendly and I am meeting with various people this coming week re fabrication of quenco at the SNF facility.


Also expect to meet some interesting end users and a few VCs later in the week, there is a lot of networking going on here and it really makes Australia look like a backwater re getting things off the ground, I can see a Quenco factory next door to Tesla cars though they sent me a rude email saying they were not interested, something about horses and water in that reply. I reckon a Qcar factory right next door to Tesla is good for competition.


For once I am optimistic that we will get ahead of the timetable in which case I will take a few days off to go and see those giant trees.


Will update more next week.


Regards Phil
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on October 15, 2012, 09:03:06 AM
Week one and you're still alive good, and I would be careful of those big trees, US government hired ninja's love them.

Hehe, I'm just kidding of course I hope you appreciate the humor. I'm pretty sure if the launch is a success there will not be a single company in Sillicon Valley that will not be interested in it, including Tesla motors.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on October 15, 2012, 11:09:14 AM
Tesla motors? Cars that use wheels in the new Quenco Jetson age.
Why drive when you could fly.  :)

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on October 15, 2012, 01:03:32 PM
Tesla motors? Cars that use wheels in the new Quenco Jetson age.
Why drive when you could fly.  :)

I whole heartedly agree with that.

Some inspiration: http://technabob.com/blog/2012/01/14/megacity-aviation-concept/ (http://technabob.com/blog/2012/01/14/megacity-aviation-concept/)

This could also easily be fully automated through gps, a collision avoidance system and an automatic neighbour detection system embedded in every vehicle.

Quenco can easily revolutionize so much so fast that law makers will go berserk or rather the companies who lobby them through big bucks.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on October 15, 2012, 02:12:11 PM
Mobile homes in the air, be very careful when you put the cat out, make sure it has a parachute, won't the sparrows be surprised?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on October 15, 2012, 07:00:53 PM
Philip,  Glad to hear you are safely in the U.S. and things are going well.   Also good to see Tesla motors has gotten so arrogant they don't even consider looking into Quenco.   It will be great to have the last laugh when a Quenco powered car with a Million mile plus driving range comes to market next to their 300 mile driving range car  :)

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Qwert on October 15, 2012, 07:56:25 PM
Tesla motors? Cars that use wheels in the new Quenco Jetson age.
Why drive when you could fly.  :)



Air accident hurts more...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on October 16, 2012, 02:15:44 AM
Most aircraft accident happen when they suddenly become ground vehicles. :(

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on October 17, 2012, 07:05:47 PM
Hi Phil and Everybody !

Great to know you're okay, and you're already working in this new phase of your life, and Quenco.

Tesla need a lesson in humility, That the plan for a Qcar: Take www.wikispeed.com (http://www.wikispeed.com) people, they want a very efficient car, designed by the crowd, that is durable and interchangeable, but their costs are high due to low manual production.

Give a few million dollars to accelerate what they already do, but based on Quenco, but designed so that the parts have an improved finish and are made ​​by persons not in his studio, but by any auto parts manufacturer, from U.S., China, Australia, etc..

Put the assembly of parts next to Tesla, call it the Qcar, and you will have thousands of manufacturers working for you at little cost. In a few months you will flood the market with Qcar, while Tesla is still struggling to increase production, the power of the masses from design to manufacturing and assembly. All open source, so you'll have a car of quality and very low cost of development and low price for the final consumer, and if someone want to copy, modify, improve, do it, wellcome, another success for you.

We think thats is the future of home appliance, open source design and free manufacture all the world, designed for endure a lifetime, easy to repair, easy to recycle, easy to modify, easy to personalize.

Broli, http://technabob.com/blog/2012/01/14/megacity-aviation-concept/ (http://technabob.com/blog/2012/01/14/megacity-aviation-concept/)  , We have a common mind, Also think that is our next future with Quenco,  http://www.synergyaircraft.com/index.html (http://www.synergyaircraft.com/index.html)   could be a great success, low cost, hi speed, small wing. 

But a mix of both could be a new major revolution, the political division of the world in countries will be obsolete, the shiping of products worldwide will  cost 10x less.

Quenco imply a brave new world!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lancaIV on October 18, 2012, 01:26:46 PM
Elisha,
how do you calculate 10X less costs when the first market price of the quenco device will be near 500US$/KW ?

Sincerely
                 CdL

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on October 18, 2012, 11:18:04 PM
Philip seems to be having a ball in California, lets hope he is still happy at Christmas.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on October 19, 2012, 02:57:15 AM
Elisha,
how do you calculate 10X less costs when the first market price of the quenco device will be near 500US$/KW ?

Sincerely
                 CdL

I think she may have meant that when Quenco becomes common as the energy source in transportation that costs for shipping will be a small fraction of what they are now.  There is a saying amoung big truckers - everything gets there by trucking.  It would be difficult to find anything in retail that is not on a big rig at some point between manufacture and end point customer.  The biggest expense in trucking is fuel.  At today's prices it can easily cost $1000.00 or more to fill up a big rig.  That will get you about 1500 miles for an average truck.  What happens when that expense goes to ZERO after the initial investment?    Same for things that must move by aircraft but aircraft fuel is even more expensive.   If Quenco can be adopted to big rigs early adopters will be able to undercut other truckers rates so it could be a fairly fast changeover to Quenco powered trucks.   I recall Cabover style trucks being by far the most common style in the 80's but when fuel prices started jumping up and Conventional style cabs got 1/2 to 1 mile per gallon better fuel mileage Cabover trucks disappeared rather quickly for just a slightly more fuel efficient design.   It is very rare now to see a Cabover style truck now unless it's just a local runner that doesn't go at highway speeds where the aerodynamics make much less difference.   So I can imagine a fairly fast change over in transportation of goods. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on October 19, 2012, 07:36:22 AM
I think that many of you are jumping the gun with respect to Quentron.  Normally extracting energy from heat requires two thermal stores that are at different temperatures.  I believe the claim here is that heat itself is converted to electricity without the need for a temperature differential.  There are many follow-up questions that arise from that.

And the claims are quite fantastic with respect to the energy density.  If you have a very high energy density then you need to have a lot of heat to supply to the device, which might not be that easy.  So even if the device actually worked, would a big truck be able to get a continuous flow of heat from the environment to keep it rolling at 120 kmh?  I am not so sure that it would.

We will see if a first wafer ever comes off of a production line in a semiconductor fab and if there are positive results to demonstrate to the world.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lancaIV on October 19, 2012, 11:42:03 AM
Hello e2matrix,
"Elisha" is an "he" ,a bollvarian male !

Quenco will save money,investment-high dependant but not 10 times less !
The trucks need -quenco as energy source-an electric drive and other changes.

Gasoil for trucks is worlwide also cheaper than common gasoil and some years before I heared from a liquid fuel saver producer that -in reality- there has not been a great interest in gasoil savings.

Average  truck numbers: 150.000 Km per annum and 35.000 Lt. gasoil consume

Sincerely
                 CdL
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on October 19, 2012, 05:43:35 PM
Hi All,


On the Theory page at

www.quentron.com/theory.html


I have posted some extracts from the full PCT patent that was filed earlier this week. Please note the diagram shows electrons as though they were in a vacuum but remember that in quenco they tunnel and so there actually are only an entry and exit point, but the resultant transform in kinetic energy to potential energy is the same.


I will not post all the patent as modifications may be made after the patent examiners look at it, for example if they object to some wording, but for now those with a reasonable understanding of physics will see how this works as a concept. Of course there are 31 other pages with details of how to build and the materials used therein, but they will not be published until about mid 2013 when the full patent is published by the patent office as an open document.


I have met many interesting and helpful professionals at Stanford, I am working closely with many experts and without exception it is a wonderful place to do physics, and wow............. the labs are simply amazing. Production will not actually get under way until Nov 1 for internal cost reasons but we are hopeful we will have finished a batch of distributable samples well before the launch.


I will drop in here and update you in a few weeks time when we have access to the tools.


Phil
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on October 19, 2012, 10:02:57 PM
Wow so we finally get to see quenco's real face. It's simplicity makes it even more exciting!
In a way it's kind of a electron accelerator where maxwell's demon acts as an electron gun and the quantum tunneling as the vacuum. So it's all about the asymmetric insulation layers?

I hope this gets out very fast :).
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on October 20, 2012, 02:24:40 AM
 Don't throw your car away just yet as Quenco could supply the energy for very cheap fuel in a carbon neutral way.

http://phys.org/news/2012-10-air-fuel-synthesis-petrol-future.html (http://phys.org/news/2012-10-air-fuel-synthesis-petrol-future.html)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on October 20, 2012, 04:08:31 AM
@broli, nice drawing but please read see the extra info at the quentron website, you need to have a low work function emitter for this to make sense.


Also you need to delete the connection to the mesh, the mesh is in fact self biased as it initially starts capturing emitted electrons, primarily from the emitter, this self biasing means there is no external circuitry needed whatsoever.


Having said that I should get you to do the drawings for the website, you have an eloquent touch.


I received a very nice email / post from a PhD in electrical engineering candidate offering to help, the future lies with these people, youth, enthusiasm and imagination.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on October 20, 2012, 12:36:22 PM
Thanks for the compliment Philip and it would be an honor, you can use anything you like free of charge. I mainly just made the rendition for myself and others here to quickly grasp the concept behind Quenco however to avoid confusion I changed the illustration above to reflect the specs more closely.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on October 20, 2012, 03:26:22 PM
                        @broli (http://www.overunity.com/profile/broli.11084/)Nice drawing pity you can't show the multilayer's.


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on October 20, 2012, 06:00:35 PM
@trim12 I also did that but I wasn't sure if the current illustration was correct and Philip didn't share the multi layer concept so I would be wrong. But nonetheless below is what I think it would look like :p.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on October 20, 2012, 06:22:53 PM
Thermionic current at 1,000,000 Amperes = 10^6 A @ room temperature? This is science fiction. Probably you missed a minus sign in the exponent. Thermionic current at room temperature is no more than 10^(-6) A/cm2. There is no known material emitting that high. Are you planning to build 10^12 cm^2 chips? And geometry doesn't matter.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on October 20, 2012, 07:07:52 PM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Groundloop on October 20, 2012, 07:24:53 PM
Here is some information about Tunnel Diodes.

GL.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on October 20, 2012, 07:30:33 PM
Thanks Groundloop,


Re my last post, to be strictly correct I should say the MIM Tunnel diode is a Quenco without a mesh.


 http://scitechstory.com/2010/11/19/the-mim-diode-another-challenger-for-the-electronics-crown/
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on October 21, 2012, 02:40:28 AM
@broli

Thanks for the drawings.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on October 21, 2012, 10:26:13 AM
@broli,


Thanks for the image, I have posted one in the theory section of quentron.com


if you want credit let me know and I will add a note under the image.


Phil
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on October 21, 2012, 02:31:16 PM
@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.


It is a pity that Nobel Laureate O.W. Richardson (the same of Richardson equation of thermionic emission) passed away long time ago. You should talk to him. Or, at least, educate  yourself on thermionic emission. I was talking about Thermionic emission. What you say about Esaki current has nothing to do whit thermionic emission. Even myself is able to generate density current like those cited by you. I let a current of 1 mA pass across a nanosurface of 10^(-9) cm^2 and voilà. Get a nanoresistor of 500 ohm, put on it an *external* bias of 0.5V and get a current of 1 mA. If this current passes across a nanosurface of 10^(-9) cm^2 then I eventually have a current of 1 million Ampere/cm^2. But this has nothing to do with THERMIONIC EMISSION. Go back to college and educate yourself.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on October 21, 2012, 03:15:51 PM
"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!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on October 21, 2012, 08:02:13 PM
Yep, it's a given that when things start getting really interesting and a concept is getting ready to go mainstream the trolls show up.   That's when 'Ignore mode' becomes important.  Anything else becomes a waste of energy - no pun intended.  ;)

BTW nice work on the drawings broli! 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on October 22, 2012, 12:00:17 AM
Companions,

Yes, I'm a Venezuelan male.

Ok, I miss this, for local shipping the reduction will be 2X to 3X. But for air shipping the reduction will be 10X, a Quenco powered plane will save near to 13.000 $ per fly of 1600 miles (3400 galons x 3.8$), This is a great saving, without consider that any electric car or plane is much lighter, less prone to failure, and easier to maintain because it is simpler (this is also a big saving). For local shipping the reduction will be 2X to 3X. Also USA is not the whole world, in the rest of the world the shipping cost is more higher for local transportation.

@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.

@trim12
If you decide to make synthetic gasoline at low cost with Quenco to keep your car with internal combustion engine, you still have maintenance costs which are not few, oil changes, radiator, pumps, compressors, belts, go to fill in gas stations, etc.    So many problems, best you put an electric kit with Quenco, save weight and problems. They are $ 10,000 per Quenco 50KVA, + $ 4.000 electric motor , + $ 4.000 labor ~= $ 20,000 total, and do not pay more in gasoline, or maintenance, just the brakes.

@Phil
Excellent news ! keep the hard work.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on October 22, 2012, 12:26:01 AM
@broli
Great drawing, excellent !

@hollaste

The problem of our society, and the source of our crisis is egoism, we just think about ourselves and do not take into account at all to others.

If you want to contribute to this forum, you are welcome, but in a constructive dialogue, respecting other points of view.

We know that the problem of the board, is not have a summary of all the points we made, so we understand that you unknow certain discussions and have doubt, but this group has been through your doubts and made discussions and calculations. Even some like myself have more than three years following the work of Philip Hardcastle.

Philip is an inventor that without seeking any reward,  very kindly shared their ideas, designs and even part of his life.  At no time has asked for money, and has proven to be very serious in its approach and its engineering is very solid.  He has spent time answering our questions and comments.

Neither Philip nor any of us are perfect, and we can have errors, but only in an atmosphere of cordiality and mutual respect we can interact.

We thank you and all the new ones that keep the atmosphere of cordiality and respect that we all deserve. And if you have doubts, with humility, we will gladly answer them.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on October 22, 2012, 03:04:58 AM
Elisha:

Quote
@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.

It sounds highly unlikely to me.  Have you done the research and the calculations?  If not, why don't you try doing them?  It would be a very useful exercise because a mistake people often make is that they take things for granted.

I will just make some preliminary comments for you.  I will guess that an all-electric 18-wheeler truck at 120 km/h needs about 25 kilowatts of continuous electrical power to maintain that speed and run the lights and power other things, etc.   Going up a hill it might require 75 kilowatts but let's not worry about that for starters.

So, what is the heat capacity of air at a typical humidity of say 40%.   If you say you will cool the air by 15 degrees Celcius to extract the heat from the air, what airflow do you need to sustain in cubic meters per second to extract 25 kilowatts of heat?

Imagine the truck has an air inlet of 2 meters x 2 meters, i.e.; 4 square meters.  How fast in meters per second does air have to flow into the 4-square-meter air inlet to extract 25 kilowatts of heat assuming that the air exits 15 degrees Celcius cooler?

My gut feel right now is telling me that it won't work, but I could be wrong.  If anybody is interested in doing the Internet searches and gathering up all of the data and crunching the numbers then more power to you.

MileHigh
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on October 22, 2012, 10:42:24 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TheCell on October 22, 2012, 12:11:43 PM
A practical example would be a benefit for all believers.
http://www.brighthub.com/environment/renewable-energy/articles/82398.aspx (http://www.brighthub.com/environment/renewable-energy/articles/82398.aspx)



Quote from the article:
It will be important to note that the ammeter used in the circuit should
be able to indicate both the positive and the negative current polarity
of the diodes under test.


But if I look at the I(U) diagram , I never see current negative, there is a negative slope ok!
Now must the 'read between the lines mode be switched on':
...When the temprature is high enough a negative current will occur
   and heat will be converted to electricity ?!
...And then it makes sense when he states:
Also, the whole operation needs to be performed at an ambient temperature
that’s below 8 degrees Celsius ambient temperature.
(Sorting the T-diodes out that show an oscillation at 94 MHz)


Which leaves the question: is there a minimum ambient temprature required
for operation in heat to electricity mode.
Mr. Hardcastle : is this setup mentioned in the link valid and will show
the function principle of your inverntion?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Qwert on October 22, 2012, 03:37:10 PM
"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!

With this "troll" description, practically all forums are forums of trolls: any disagreement falls under the "troll" meaning. This definition comes from this site: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll)

and is only one of its kind. All other definitions are more complex and thus their meaning is definitely different from the above one. Even the suggestion to reeducate should not be considered as an insult if the opponent thinks an example is improper.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on October 22, 2012, 05:24:45 PM
@ElishaThink of the millions of cars there are and all the jobs that are involved with them in a fragile world economy the rapid introduction of Quenco powered cars might cause even more chaos in my opinion

Cars powered by electricity need electric motors which have there on environmental problems, I personally, although Phil thinks I am being silly prefer Quenco powered compressed air engines in the wheels of vehicles or even steam. Think about it Quenco can both heat and condense water.
Philip is at the cutting edge of technology so the failure rate of his early chips will most probably exceed 90% but as long as he has a few perfect ones to test the Quenco era the world so  needs will be born. :D   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on October 22, 2012, 06:21:29 PM
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.

Issue closed?  LOL - You are not a moderator here but nice try.  And yes I'm disregarding my own suggestion to ignore you only because I think you believe you are not trolling.  Your first post here to Philip came off as rude, condescending , disrespectful and contentious.  It's the way a bad teacher might address an 8th grader in math class.  I suspect you have not grasped the nuances of communication on forums.   Maybe it's a cross cultural and or language issue.   Or maybe it's just a case of blurting out your feelings on a subject where you think you have superior knowledge and where being anonymous without concern for the consequences of your post leads you to believe there will be none.   Maybe you missed that Philip has put many years of work into this, he is a real physicist and so what are the odds he missed a minus sign in an equation.  That's just downright insulting.  Knowing the overall situation I don't see how anyone could have taken your post any other way than insulting and contentious.   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on October 22, 2012, 06:44:20 PM
Apologies Elisha,  I was not sure and was just best guessing gender based based on similar names in North America.  Thanks for your contributions here.   I'm still leaning towards your original estimates of operating costs of a vehicle for transportation.   Other than initial cost - and you have initial cost on a vehicle whether it is gas, electric or quenco style free electric - the largest cost of getting down the road is fuel except if it's quenco based.  I imagine a scenario in transportation where large companies would be grabbing up quenco based trucks as fast as they could to beat out the competition in pricing their goods.  This would result in a shift from owner-operator based trucking to more company owned trucks with companies paying the usual lower wages to company drivers.  A fuel based truck could easily be 6 times more expensive to run per mile than a fuel-less based truck everything else being equal. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Qwert on October 22, 2012, 08:19:18 PM
Dear all,



@hollander, I'm definitely with you. If anybody here is rude, it's the host and his clappers. I base this opinion after reading all your posts in this thread.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on October 23, 2012, 12:07:00 AM
@trim12
Yes, the world economy is very bad, because the world economy model, is addicted to debt, and is now in intensive care by debt overdose. And to make matters worse, doctors prescribed doses more debt. http://www.usdebtclock.org/ (http://www.usdebtclock.org/), that is crazy, insane.

The job problem, is in its definition, we dont need jobs to produce more products that end up in the trash, contaminating soil and seas.  We need jobs, is to divide up among the entire population, the manufacture, the things that we need in society, so each person would work a few hours a day and we would have everything we need. Of course this requires an economic model that is not based on debt.

Quenco is a new energy source, so disruptive, which forced in practice to a new model of economy, jobs, and society.

@e2matrix
Yes, imagine the year 2016, You can buy a Quenco powered truck and also is available a Google Driverless car, marriage them, then you have something very disruptive.  This will be a very exciting time; more jobless, or less time to work and more time for family and personal grow up.   This depend of the model of the economy in 2016.

@TheCell
The minimum ambient temperature required for operation in heat to electricity mode, if our memory is good in the words of philip is -40°C, but top electric current will lower 15%.

@Groundloop
The experiment in the papers that you share, ¿are real?, ¿is possible to do the circuit and convert heat to electric current using tunnel diodes?

Thanks.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on October 23, 2012, 03:00:18 AM
Obviously a world with working Quenco can solve its food and water problems but will that just mean a vast jump in population?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on October 24, 2012, 05:05:14 PM
I saw that Hardcastle updated his Theory page. He posted the following picture describing one of his previous experiments (Pentode tube).

I am not a provocateur, I just want  to understand. Did you make a control experiment to exclude other factors? For instance,  by performing the same measurement, with a bulb without thermionic layer? By direct experience, I know that high sensibility ammeters detect currents (pA or even uA) even when the circuit is open, above all when high temperatures are involved. This should be a common sense check (and mine is a common sense question).

Welcome replies are:

Silence

No, I didn't.

Yes, I did and found nothing

No insulting reply is welcome. Thanks.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on October 24, 2012, 06:09:37 PM
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. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on October 24, 2012, 08:33:37 PM
TheCell,

That is an interesting article.
I believe that setup fully describes the operating principal of a quenco tile.  It looks like a few features will be added to the quenco tiles that increase the ability to perform the conversion, but the principal is the same.

http://www.brighthub.com/environment/renewable-energy/articles/82398.aspx (http://www.brighthub.com/environment/renewable-energy/articles/82398.aspx)

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: wideyed_tutank on October 25, 2012, 06:10:03 AM
@Hollander,


Hello my friend.  Looks like you are missing the point that the little experiment provided the leap of faith to Quenco.  Just saying that any useful control experiment will be better done on a Quenco; not on the pentode if you catch my drift.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: aaron5120 on October 25, 2012, 06:25:23 AM
Hi Lumen,
I read the article about using tunneling diodes to convert heat to electricity, and it seems the FE community let this info went ignored long time ago. I personally think if you can convert direct sunlight heat to 1.2V 100mA DC with 7 pieces of tunneling diodes( which is not an expensive component), this is quite impressive.
Even without the refinements of quenco, which are quite remarkable to ay the least, I think we can start experimenting with off-the-shelf components to replicate the efects discovered by those scientists who wrote the article.
What you say, lumen?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on October 25, 2012, 03:39:45 PM
hollander,  what is a "high sensibility ammeter" ?   Can we assume you meant high sensitivity ammeter?

Obviously, yes. 

Quote
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 of the Pentode electrode must be covered with a thermionic coating in order to emit electrons (collected by the second electrode). I have a Keithely 614 (high sensitivity electrometer) and it gives a reading of pA and even uA when the terminals are connected to some capacitor. One must be extremely careful when performing such kind of measurements.
   
Quote
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.

I agree with you. Let's wait to see whether someone is willing to put up a Million dollars. As far as you know, is there a person willing to do that? My 'High Sensibility meter' says that Hardcastle will have hard time to justify why his invention does not work.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on October 25, 2012, 05:23:44 PM
@hollander.

Philip was right with you.

You are expressing a negative quality in you, and you want to pollute us with your negativity. Your negative attitude is not welcome in this forum, but you are welcome.

If you have positive qualities express it, but not express negative here.

Currently Philip gave us an experiment, that is reach up to us to check and see if it's true or not. and accept that you make factual statements, based on experiments.  And as you know from quantum mechanics, the experimenter influences the results of an experiment, and with negativity, we will see only negative results, with a positive attitude may not get the desired results but we can discover a new reality, perhaps more valuable than we are looking for.

If you correct your attitude, and you become objective, and express the results of your own experimentation, you are welcome, but if you keep your negativity, thank you not write anything, because you damage the warm atmosphere of camaraderie in this room.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on October 25, 2012, 06:04:02 PM
Hi All,


There certainly is some quantum weirdness creeping in to conversations. LOL


I always used a moving coil meter (a meter that is 0-10uA and is the simple unpowered type device that can only respond to ACTUAL current) as well as a Keithley for confirmation and low current. I did all the things that should be done for an experiment. I also repeated the experiments with devices in series, back to back, and in parallel (5). I also had scientists do the test independently. The outputs were as predicted and fully support my claim that it violates Kelvin. So that then brings me to a guy that comes in here and constantly wants to smear my work, what is his motivation? When I first saw his post I thought he must be some sick individual, the last post only seems to confirm that he has some issues. What I cannot get is these people that presented with a $10 challenge refuse to do it but would rather seek to get everyone to abandon a breakthrough.


@ Hollander, do the $10 experiment and report your results here, you have my word that it works and that it is a violation but if you do it and it does not work then I will pay for your time and expenses plus send you a gift voucher for 1000 Euro (I assume by the name you are from Holland).


As to the other Esaki experiment someone came up with here, by all means entertain yourself and experiment, but I do not see that it is in any way Quenco, so I would rather you did not label it as being equivalent unless you can explain to me why.


Thanks as usual to those that have such kind words towards me.


At Stanford we have resolved a production issue and have agreed to make 10,000 1mm2 devices as a run, I expect about a 5% yield which should equate to 500 devices. The reasoning for this is that we have poor knowledge of Pt metal nucleation, we do not know exactly on what cycle it will take off so we know over the 10,000 on some it will not, on some it will have too much. We are confident that 5% will quickly rise to 99.9%, this is all a bit like making ic's.


We have also solved flat metal substrate issues, there is experience at Stanford of doing Silver on polished Silicon (atomically sooth) and then etching away the silicon thus leaving atomically smooth silver. Everything else all agree is easy to do and in fact we have already done them in Australia.


I am a bit surprised not one person from the quentron website readers seems to have done the $10 experiment, it is such a significant thing that I would have expected dozens of science labs, universities and such to have raced to do it, sort of proves that a challenge to the 2nd law is so taboo that even secret experimenters are shy. I mean it is less than $10 to be part of history, to be one of a handful to have violated the 2nd would be bragging rights, am I right?


Anyone reading this who is at a Uni or has access to a lab the challenge I put to Hollander applies.


I'll be back next week with an update.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on October 25, 2012, 07:22:54 PM
Thanks for the continued updates Philip.  I get more excited every time I hear the progress being made.   I think much of the physics of this is over my head or at least I think it would take a lot of studying for me to get a grasp of it.   It sounds like hollander may know a bit more about some of this however I think the issues coming up are probably related to the same old paradigm.  Everyone fully believed the Earth was flat, man could not fly and so on until it was right 'in their face' undeniable proof.  There are a lot of ego's at stake here.  A whole lot of scientists are going to feel stupid when this becomes 'in their face' with undeniable proof.  So their will be many grasping at straws to hold on to the old reality. 
      In a way it seems there are always two classes of people you find on energy forums.  There are the believers - who believe in a growing bigger reality of a better world.  Or you could call them eternal optimists.  I probably fit in there.  Then there are the non-believers and eternal pessimists.  They want to stomp on everyone's flowers.  They hold on to a current unchanging reality with a near death grip.  They are afraid of change.   I believe we create the reality we focus on.  You empower that which you focus on.  Think seriously about that and you will see many examples.   I choose to focus on what a wonderful world it will be with Quenco.   ;)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on October 26, 2012, 02:23:43 AM
Oops, minus 5 points for lumen!
 
Philip,
I apologize for indicating the diode array is similar to quenco. I will not indicate why since I am sure you know more about the similarities or differences than I do.
 I cannot verify if this circuit performs as described but thought it interesting in that if it does operate, would serve only as an another indicator of the failure in the second law of thermodynamics.
 
I am very happy to hear quenco success is so near!

 
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on October 26, 2012, 08:14:44 AM
@Elisha

Let me be more positive:

We have only to wait less than one month. And then we will see.

@Philip

I wish you to succeed, but my gut feelings tell me that if we are lucky (to be able to demonstrate the violation of the second law), we only get a tiny power output. Useful to prove the violation. Useless from a practical point of view.
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on October 26, 2012, 08:16:15 AM
We have only to wait less than one month. And then we will see.

Amen to that.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on October 26, 2012, 10:29:19 AM
Hi all,


Special posting, Hollander has made me somewhat sad and angry, I offered him a prize to prove me wrong and he comes back with words meant to undermine and white ant my work and efforts. I want the movers and shakers to attend my launch but when people are not prepared to open their mind it seems so hard. So I have posted an offer to Universities to urgently do the experiment then I will be free of the negative nigglers that seek to hinder progress. I am the first to admit that my work is a long way from finished, I need people to attend who have the ears of industrialists so that we can get a team working on mass production, if my launch is attended by people who just have an interest but no influence then I might as well just post it on you-tube.


I have offered a $10,000 prize to a reputable university to do what will take them just a few hours, doing all the necessary controls etc. So if you know someone at Uni or are someone from a Uni pass my message on. The offer is 100% genuine.


I tell you that my feeling is that people out there seem to want me to fail, only here have I found some good vibes.


It (the problem of energy) is everyone's problem, so I ask that all here do their bit and engage the enemy, the closed and arrogant minds of people that cannot seem to understand that breakthroughs in science are almost always breakthroughs that nobody expected or believed. Of course you can do nothing and leave it to me to do every bit of the hard work, but is that fair? I have not asked for money, just for your help in communicating my work and offer to the wider public.


Phil
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: ramset on October 26, 2012, 01:54:25 PM
Phil
 
Your test seems so simple .. I have access to persons here that help me all the time with measurements and testing  to acceptable industry standards.
 
Besides the high temp oven [have a few],is there any other piece of equipment
required ?[besides volt... temp meters]
Could you give a quick list of equipment?
 
I would be happy to run this test absolutely no charge,it could be run to
the level of a testing lab .
 
The fellows that will be checking my protocol and results are the types that can interpret the data and get it into university quickly.
 
?
thx
Chetkremens@gmail.com
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on October 26, 2012, 02:19:29 PM
Quote
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.

I don't see how the $10 test using the TV tube violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  Perhaps someone could explain this?  From my perspective the Second Law is just fine.

MileHigh
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: DreamThinkBuild on October 26, 2012, 03:25:18 PM
Hi Philip,

I think your doing an awesome job.

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

Validation will validate.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on October 26, 2012, 07:29:16 PM
Hi Philip,  I will contact a University near me which I have heard was doing some research into alternative energy.  I was told they were very interested in projects along that line.  If they show interest I'll put them in contact with you or give you a contact there. 

I think hollander has moved back into the Troll zone.  Compared to a lot of other threads on this nearly un-moderated forum (Wild Wild West compared to most forums) this message thread has been relatively troll free if that's any comfort. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on October 26, 2012, 08:08:30 PM


Thanks for the support and good words.

 
Thanks for the quick responses.

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

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

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

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

 
A good basic experiment would be

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

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

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

 
Video, of course.

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

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

 
Lab Hot termination block for wires from the device.

 
Lab Cold termination block for wires to the meters.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Thanks again to you ramset for your offer.


Phil 

 

 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Qwert on October 27, 2012, 06:04:27 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on October 27, 2012, 07:40:58 AM
Is this guy a physicist? It seems not.
Qwert,  Why would you say that?  It seems your posts have taken an unusual turn lately.  Maybe it's that Quantum weirdness Philip mentioned - LOL.   I can show you a post where Philip states he is a physicist or you could just search his posts on overunity.com.   Why would he say that if he is not a physicist?   Just a Google search will show that he is a physicist unless you consider a person who was a senior geophysicist for one of the world's largest companies to not be a physicist (I think he is also an electrical engineer).   Sounds to me like he has even more qualifications for a project like this than a regular physicist.   I would urge you to read this entire page including comments:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3125

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

head shake smiley goes here   ....    ;)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Qwert on October 27, 2012, 10:28:40 AM
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3125 (http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3125)

Reading above mentioned ZPE Energy link, Philip suggests he is no more than a scientific amateur, not associated with any scientific laboratory: he gives only his private address and not any scientific title by his name. There is a lot of people in Australia named this name (by Google). Philip himself in his very first post on this forum mentions that he is associated with science and physics through his whole life but he does not say what does that mean; it could be that somebody in his family is a science person and he assists him/her his whole life.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on October 28, 2012, 07:38:18 AM
 :o     I don't know what you consider to be a physicist but the the statement "I am a physicist" as I read in one of his posts seems easy enough to understand.   Also the statement in that article that "I was a senior geophysicist" and this was for a company with a value of over 400 Billion dollars would seem to clearly indicate someone with a degree in physics and probably more.   I'm not going to pursue this sort of distracting nonsense any more.  Something has clearly changed here.  I'll just say for everyone else reading this that things like this always seem to happen as something big gets close.   Draw your own conclusions as to why ....
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on October 28, 2012, 03:18:06 PM
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 have read the recent posts by Philip and followed some of the links and I have to agree with Qwert.  I noticed that his references to the electrical characteristics of the device indicate that he is an amateur.  That doesn't jive if you are supposed to be the one developing this technology.  A geophysicist may only have the most rudimentary understanding of electronics from one or two first year courses.

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

If this was real then it would be the biggest news story of the 21st century and every news site would have it plastered on the front page.  The world would change overnight, it would be the most shocking thing the world has ever seen.  And you guys had a discussion about the first killer application, hearing aid batteries, in all seriousness.  More importantly, Philip talked about it in all seriousness.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on October 28, 2012, 06:21:45 PM
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.   



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

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

If this was real then it would be the biggest news story of the 21st century and every news site would have it plastered on the front page.  The world would change overnight, it would be the most shocking thing the world has ever seen.  And you guys had a discussion about the first killer application, hearing aid batteries, in all seriousness.  More importantly, Philip talked about it in all seriousness.
Milehigh,  Your reputation as a non-believer and basher of almost everything precedes you.  You were almost banned at the   liberal OverunityResearch.com forum because people were tired of all the negativity.   I don't know if you are just a born skeptic of everything or whether you are paid to do this or if you have just chosen 'save us all from our foolishness' - LOL.   But I'll just leave it at we will likely never agree.   I could readily argue your statements above but I'll not waste my time on it because I've seen the arguments go on endlessly with you in other threads and other forums. 
 I completely understand his reasoning for getting something small started as a validation of his device but as I said I won't argue that or anything else.   I will add I don't really know what degrees Philip has but just based on his post above it would seem he has an extensive knowledge of physics and of testing procedures needed to validate this.  I've had college physics and electronics and a Ham radio license but I am far from being an electrical engineer or physicist.   However it was stated in that article I pointed to that Philip was also an electrical engineer.   So disbelieve what ever you want - it's your right   :P
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Qwert on October 28, 2012, 06:39:27 PM
Google "what is / who is a physicist" or "physicist definition" or something like that. According to one, since I'm just studying it, I am a physicist despite that I don't understand a word in a professional handbook: 'A physicist is someone who studies or completes research into physics (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-physics.htm)'. ( http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-physicist.htm (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-physicist.htm) )
But according to another statement of the same link, I'm not: 'There are three items required to become a physicist: post-secondary education, graduate studies, and working experiences as a physicist.'
 I don't consider "a physicist", "a scientist" a guy who expresses his anger when his work is challenged and who expects applause only. If I tell you that I am God, will you believe me? You should, b'coz I told so... 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on October 28, 2012, 07:36:12 PM
e2matrix, there is no need to play the MIB card all the time.  Words posted on a forum cannot stop someone from advancing their project.

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

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

Finally, no takers to explain why the $10 TV tube experiment overturns the 2nd LoT?  I personally don't see that happening at all.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on October 28, 2012, 11:31:43 PM
@milehigh
@Qwert

This is for alternative sources of energy, philip give us a simple test. Do you have something to say about this test?.

If you dont have anything to say about science, please go away, dont waste our time.   And all your negative talk, will return to you, in multiple ways!

@everyone
This next week I will try to make the test of philip, but i just can find used "not new" pentode in my country.  I will talk about my results.

The love of the eternal God be with everybody.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on October 29, 2012, 12:20:33 AM
Elisha:

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

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

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

MileHigh
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on October 29, 2012, 12:39:46 AM
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.

Someone with your electronics experience could easily do the $10 experiment and produce current from an isothermal environment. (which does overturn PART of the second law)
 
Or you could do the experiment that was posted by "TheCell" a few posts back. Again, current from an isothermal environment.
Or, being a good skeptic, you could just believe you are right and keep crying about how impossible it is. (this is by far the easiest and is recommended for general life failure skeptics)
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on October 29, 2012, 02:20:09 AM
Lumen:

Who says I'm crying and what pray tell is a "general life failure skeptic?"  Haven't the skeptics been winning?  You need to chill out.  If this ends up going nowhere I would like an acknowledgement from you that I was right.

Nor did I say current flow was impossible.  What I said was I don't see how this experiment violates the 2nd LoT in an any way.

Can you explain how the experiment violates the second law?  So far I haven't heard from anybody, perhaps you would like to take a crack at it?

MileHigh
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Magluvin on October 29, 2012, 03:19:21 AM
 ;)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on October 30, 2012, 09:04:04 AM

@Philip

There are some things that I do not understand. I made a simple question about your pentode experiment and you asked me and other people to repeat the experiment, maybe posting the results on youtube. What is the goal of all this? Try to convince me and other "skeptic" that the pentode results were real? I said that one must be extremely careful in performing very very very low current measurements because it is quite easy to measure the instrument own disturbance, above all when you are doing measurement @ 500 C.

I think that the best way to silence people like me is: post a video of your own results with a Quenco working prototype. You are saying that Quenco is a "million times more powerful" than your pentode experiment. Moreover, now the patent has been filed, so no copyright problem. Why you do not do that?

One more question: Do you already have a Quenco working prototype? If not, how one can say that it is a "million times more powerful" than the pentode experiment? Are you try to sell a technology before having tested it?




 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on October 31, 2012, 08:23:07 AM

I see that quentron.com site changed layout once again. Preparing for the launch?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on October 31, 2012, 10:31:32 AM
Chips to be fabricated in November, hope Stanford can meet the very tight specifications and that Quenco awes the world. ;D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on November 01, 2012, 01:24:16 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on November 01, 2012, 02:35:55 AM
Elisha:

Now it is time to think about how researchers act responsibly and in a scientific manner.

You see what looks like an interesting result and you are supposed to question yourself, look for where you might have gone wrong, look for other possible alternative explanations, and even encourage your peers to question your results.  You are supposed to try to double-check yourself and look for possible sources of problems.  The problems might be related to measurement error or something else.

If you are really serious about this research, you would also be looking for reasons that your data and conclusions might NOT be true, because that is what good and real science is all about.

MileHigh
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mikestocks2006 on November 01, 2012, 11:23:23 AM
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.

edited to reflect PeterMax's post bellow
Thx PeterMax
 
Hi Elisha, nice work.
Thanks for posting the results.
Mike
 
http://www.quentron.com/index.html (http://www.quentron.com/index.html) 
"...To see that this is not science fiction but the biggest breakthrough ever you need to see proof, and that proof must be provided by an independent scientific body, you simply will not believe me just because I told you so.

So I offered $10,000 if someone would do the proof of concept experiment and NOT get an electrical power output, a sort of "prove me wrong" challenge, but there were no takers, so the challenge has been increased to.............
$25,000..."

 
 

 
   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: PeterMax on November 01, 2012, 11:55:44 AM
No price for success in reproducting experiment:

...proof of concept experiment and NOT get an electrical power output...

Temperature gradiant:
If Phil is right some heat will be converted in electrical current, so a part of the tube will cool down a little. This is caused by the effect and not the source of the effect.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on November 01, 2012, 01:15:42 PM
@Elisha

Very nice, well done.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on November 01, 2012, 03:30:37 PM
It's strange how those with little, can do so much and those with so much, do so little!

Very good job Elisha!


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on November 01, 2012, 11:29:45 PM
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.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on November 02, 2012, 08:52:49 AM
While Philip Hardcastle is changing (resetting) once more the look and the content of his website (new launch date... a bit annoying, to be honest), I'm still waiting for his reply to one of my previous questions, that I think to be central:

self quote:
Quote
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on November 02, 2012, 01:05:28 PM
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.

If you managed to successfully replicate a Quenco chip, a very hard start of the art thing to do at the moment, you wouldn't need an oven, room temperature would do nicely.

As a reputable University like Stanford are attempting to fabricate the chip at the moment if they are successful to make the layers flat enough so it won't short circuit than we will all know soon enough whether Lord Kelvin was a big as twerp about thermodynamics as he was about heavier than air flight.

Maybe I am being a bit hard on Lord Kelvin as the weirdness of quantum mechanics were not discovered when he was around.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on November 02, 2012, 04:12:38 PM
Hi All,


I am making a special posting here today to explain the changes to the Quenco long term strategy.


First a quick update on the technical issues.


I am pleased to announce that the biggest hurdle to manufacture has been solved, I cannot reveal the details because that is subject to a new patent application, what I can tell you is that the change means fabrication is now no longer exotic and difficult, and yields can now be guaranteed to be near 100%. Of course we are a long way from being able to do 1000 layer devices.


Now the changes to Quenco strategy, some time ago a lot of people here gave me their thoughts and they made sense to the point that I increased the royalty to $100 per cm2, I am no longer comfortable with that level and so I have reduced it back to my earlier pricing. It does mean a substantial drop to the foundation but in the end the needs of the environment and all the people come first. Early adoption of technology is very important and so the barriers must be kept low, even the licence fees are reduced to get the thing going asap.


The charitable foundation will have as its prime goal to produce quenco for the poor and the foundation will have a licence such that the income it receives can be efficiently applied to produce massive amounts of free quenco for those unable to afford it. Clearly this means production of billions of cm2 for the 3rd World.


It is my view that this is the best strategy.


As to the removal of the challenge, firstly there was not a single taker despite it generating an amazing amount of hits, secondly the feedback was hostile and nasty. Thirdly, and most importantly, it probably was just me being a bit childish and naive, the fact is the best proof is a fully operational quenco. So I am simplifying and focussing on that, and that alone.


Phil
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on November 02, 2012, 06:58:31 PM
More great news!   Thanks again for the updates.   Sorry to hear this didn't bring in big business interests yet but I suspect it's so far above what most people can believe that until some sort of device is "in their face and hands" and see a working unit that interest may be a bit slack.   You show both great knowledge and high Integrity Philip.   I am always left with a good feeling in reading your updates.     In case others haven't looked lately at the web site here's something for you from quentron.com:

                              "   The only acceptable proof of such a device is a working device

                                                                         So be here

                                                                    OFFICIAL LAUNCH
                                                                    30 November 2012
                                                                    6pm (p.s.t) "
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on November 02, 2012, 07:44:57 PM
@Phil

That's the ticket, are the colonies civilised enough to sell Watneys and pork pies yet and do they have PG tips? ;)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on November 03, 2012, 03:16:38 AM
It really is very laudable, good intention of Philip, desire that this development comes quickly to those in need. And encourage her friends and colleagues in this great challenge, the generator thermionic, which has taken so many years.

But we must be realistic, Quenco price will be high for the first to use it, regardless of the price of the license, because although you can make a high production, demand, will be much more large, therefore the price to the consumer will be high.  Therefore if the license is cheap, what will happen is that the manufacturer  and intermediaries  they will remain with much of the gain, and Philip will have minimal income compared with manufacturers, being philip, the most time and money has risked in this invention.

We propose the following.
Limit 100 licenses.
$ 10 royalty per cm2.
$ 10M Application fee per license.
$ 10M Annual renewal fee.

This is the reasoning:
The companies that will be asking Quenco licenses, and they will mass produce, are Intel, Samsung, TSMC, Global Foundries, Samsung, Micron, Toshiba, etc.. These companies are accustomed to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for licenses, semiconductor, ie $ 1 million is nothing for these companies, lawyers may charge more money to write a contract of these characteristics, more that what it costs the license. For example, Intel paid this year 2.3 billion dollars for a stake of 10% in a company of semiconductor wafer fabrication.

If philip, want to help a friend, to facilitate the entry, production, Quenco because philip can directly give the discount, you want.

For the foundation proposed by philip, its purpose it should be bring solutions for the production of food, housing, water and electricity.  At cost and long-term financed. The poor do not need, Quenco and they will not know how to use it, they need solutions that work with Quenco. What could happen is that unscrupulous brokers would use these free Quenco,  making profit of the needs of the poor.

The solution to the problems of the people, is not give anything for free, because that's filled with shame, and takes away the possibility of earning their own living, and to develop themselves as individuals and as a society . What we you have to do is provide all the tools and conditions for they can have a decent life, not charging interest, giving them time and work, so they can afford what they really need.

An individual without dignity, is dependent of what you always give to him. This being the opposite of the result sought.

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).
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on November 03, 2012, 03:57:48 AM
Elisha:

Quote
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).
   
I hate to say this, but it's time for everybody in this thread to get real.  People that want to believe in free energy cannot simply close their eyes to the truth.

Seamus103 already stated it in posting #339 but you did not want to acknowledge it and no one else did either.  Your experimental setup is clearly not an isothermal setup, it's a toaster oven!  A toaster oven can't even make evenly browned toast.  The heating element cycles on and off according to the setting of the thermostat.  That does not product a constant temperature, that produces a variable temperature.  In addition, the parts of the pentode tube that are closer to the heating element will be hotter than the parts of the pentode tube that are farther away from the heating element.

Unfortunately you haven't replicated anything.  That is the truth and if it's upsetting to you, channel your frustration in a positive way.  Try to make a better experimental apparatus.  A toaster oven will simply not work, sorry.

The truth is without any specialized equipment, the chances are very slim that you will be able to make an isothermal oven.

MileHigh
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on November 03, 2012, 04:57:00 PM
@Elisha

Nice, but you ought to save your money, we should all know within about a month when Stanford have successfully fabricated the millimetre baby Quencos.

When tests on them show a small current without an oven then bingo!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on November 04, 2012, 06:40:10 AM
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.


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on November 04, 2012, 08:00:22 AM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on November 04, 2012, 02:08:28 PM
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on November 04, 2012, 07:37:53 PM
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?

Absolutely! Yes for test #1 and No for test #2.
These are separate tests so they have separate answers for the true condition.

Do you doubt the tests ability to determine if the result is due to uneven heating?

Of course, there is always the possibility that just after you rotate the tube 180 degrees, the toaster oven will suddenly reverse it's heat flow direction just to mess with your test. (maybe it's a smart toaster oven!)

It may even rotate the heating direction to match the tube rotation in test #2 so only one side of the tube will get heat. Yes it's a magic convection toaster oven!

Or, maybe the tests actually work as described. (naw, this is impossible in view of the other probabilities)

Cold sink!, Yes, first show me one that uses the same wire type for both sides of the connection! Oh, and test #3, Swap the wires connected to the tube and repeat tests #1 and #2.

Where is the "Cold Sink "idea now? Gee, I don't see it!

All the equipment in the world does not produce a good test, analytical thinking is the best equipment.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on November 06, 2012, 07:48:41 AM
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

Umm, works for chicken!

The idea is that if uneven heating is a problem, it will show up as changing polarity or changing current, provided the tube is rotated slowly. If the tube is rotated rapidly then there could be no such thing as uneven heating even if you used a cheap heat gun!

So think about that limited problem solving.

It doesn't really make any difference now since it appears Philip has his Quenco chips working!

"We now know how to produce almost perfect Quenco's,
and we will make a 2cm x 2cm array of 4mm2 Quenco's,
mounted on a 115.5 x 62.1 x 12.3 mm heat absorber.
 
We will use this array to perpetually power an iPhone,
an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof,
a witnessed working device."

OFFICIAL LAUNCH
30 November 2012
6pm (p.s.t)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on November 06, 2012, 05:41:42 PM
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

I am about sick of a couple of you on this forum.  Why don't you go back with your buddy TK and use your "problem solving skills" to design a "working" whipmag.  Oh, wait, you did that, but it was a fraud. 
At least lumens is testing something.  Instead of fault finding anyone really interested in finding some real solutions.  You have an agenda and TK has an agenda.  We on this forum are wise to the both of you.
 
Have a nice day!
 
Bruce
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on November 06, 2012, 05:58:11 PM
Lumen:

There is an expression about counting chickens.  You say the incubation period will be over at the end of the month?  We will both have to wait and see.

Bruce:

You can't fit a square peg into a round hole no matter how much you try.  Lumen is not testing anything, we are discussing Elisha's testing.

Now, Elisha's test is either an isothermal test or it's not an isothermal test.  The TRUTH is that it is CLEARLY NOT an isothermal oven.  Now, is this progress, to do improper tests and then just push ahead and act like you are deaf, dumb, and blind?

What is your opinion, do you think Elisha's test setup is an isothermal setup, yes or no?

Here is the problem Bruce:  If you close your eyes and say, "Yes, the toaster oven is an isothermal setup" then were does that lead to?   What are the possible consequences?

Well, a few people have been killed transferring liquified "HHO"  (really 2H2 + O2) from one container to another.  The roof blew off of a building in California last year, it was in the news.  Handling "HHO" is like handling a bomb - nitroglycerin - one tiny static spark and boom you are dead.

Or, your thinking based on wishful thinking and blinding yourself to the truth leads to things like Thalidomide babies.

Quote
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.

So sorry Bruce, a toaster oven is NOT an isothermal oven, and you should face up to that fact.

MileHigh

PS:  I had absolutely nothing to do with the Whipmag.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on November 06, 2012, 07:32:57 PM
Bruce,

Sorry Bruce, I'm not the one doing the testing. I'm just lining up the life failure skeptics for the soon to come crow feast.

If any of them would have done any research, they would have known that the principal (electron tunneling due to heat) has been a problem in the MOSFET industry when they tried to reduce gate barriers to less than 100nm.
Can you imagine the tunneling you would get with a barrier less than 1.5nm!

But you know how they are.  ::)

I don't want to say too much, I'm already -10 points with Philip.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: PeterMax on November 08, 2012, 02:54:59 PM

Update on the website (quentron.com) regarding the launch:

"
We now know how to produce almost perfect Quenco's
For the launch we will have 3mm diameter Quenco's
These devices will be available as loans to licencees


We will also make an array of 3mm diameter Quenco's
The array will be mounted on 1/8th thick Aluminum plate
The desired output will be 5.1V @ 3Amps via a USB
Sufficient to perpetually power an iPad with no battery
I would like to nickname this integration as the QiPad

I hope to be able to get Eric Wesoff to test the QiPad
Eric seems to me to be 100% sceptical about Quenco
There can be no better report than one from a sceptic
(Eric Wesoff is the Editor in Chief at Greentech Media)
www.cleantechlawpartners.com/CLP/Eric_Wesoff.html
 
OFFICIAL LAUNCH USA & EUROPE
30th November 2012
"


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mrsean2k on November 08, 2012, 06:49:02 PM
I wondered:

1) Why the change from 2mm to 3mm - presumably easier to handle / connect to?

2) An iPad seems like an unnecessarily complicated hurdle for a proof of concept - wouldn't a bulb would do the trick, with less room for claims of an alternate power source?

3) Who "AR" was in the licensing. The "AR" in Italy that immediately springs to mind wouldn't inspire confidence

4) If there were any images of fabricated film yet
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on November 08, 2012, 08:03:02 PM
It's early on in the fabrication process so I would guess that 2-3mm chips are about the size that can be reliably produced.

The iPad does seem a bit out there for an early test device, but it's cool to think you could just run it forever and never need to charge it.

AR, Yes I had the same thought, but you really won't need the AR stuff unless you plan to use it in space where there is not heat. (like a Mars trip)

This is all just my opinion since we are all waiting for the launch for the real info.



Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on November 08, 2012, 09:11:16 PM
As Phil claims that a fully developed Quenco can still produce power at liquid nitrogen temperatures, a trip to Mars using the latest electro drives, maybe even boosted with ultra thin solar mirrors should be a doddle.

And Mars is quite warm  during the day at its equator.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: PeterMax on November 10, 2012, 11:28:17 AM
Website quentron.com changed again.

Number of licenses reduced, but way more expensive.
Details of launch removed.

"
Only 25 Licences will ever be created, 16 have now been assigned or reserved
Those currently holding a reserved licence shall be entitled to convert at $1M

There will be no further licences issued until after the official product launch
After the launch there will be 9 more licences for sale at $100M per licence



Official Launch
30th November 2012
"
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on November 10, 2012, 01:11:45 PM
Hi All,


A frustrating week for me but also a good one.
Totally confident about delivering Quenco by the 30th unless there is a disaster, and I think I have already had more than my share these last 6 months.


Materials needed to make 100 Quenco's has been ordered and should be in hand by weeks end, we of course will make just half a dozen on the first run to check calibrations again.


We figure the time in the ALD is about 2 hours, PVD about 1 hour, and other tasks about 4 hours, so technically speaking it is just a days work, realistically it will take 3 days.


So as to increase voltage we are going to go with a slightly thicker device, probably 4nm, which will allow us to have 100mV and so say 51 devices for a 5V supply.


After a lot of consideration from good people and upon reflection we have reduced the licences to 25 from 100, considerations were management and efficiency. It should be understood that some people feel that investment is stymied if there are too many licences and i can understand that viewpoint, also I feel that I can handle only a small number of licences in the first instant as everyone will want my attention. I feel that ultimately there will be a distribution of licences around the World. I was disappointed we did not have anyone from India or China apply before I closed the offer of cheap licence, a genuine person did contact me just a short time ago from India telling me that I should not forget the needs of India, I have not but I am just one person, I am sure some of the people that have licences will make sure India and China are supplied, and the Foundation will no doubt use it production to supply the very poor of those nations.


Bye   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on November 10, 2012, 01:32:23 PM
Thanks very much for the update Phil.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on November 11, 2012, 08:54:29 AM
Thanks for the very encouraging news Phil.  It sounds like things are moving full speed and that you are handling things in the best possible way.  Your flexibility of going with the flow of things tells me there is great wisdom in your decisions.   Best wishes for easier and fruitful weeks ahead!   Since I just got through watching an old Star Trek movie I wanted to say 'Shields up and warp speed Captain' but then that might sound silly ...  ;)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on November 12, 2012, 01:08:34 AM
Philip, thanks for the updates.    All our best wishes to you!!

The decision to limit the licenses to 25 is very wise is difficult to a man to manage 100 installations worldwide, but in the future you will need more to cover the world.  All the licensed must to work in coordinated fashion with philip, will be interesting to have coordination and status weekly meetings (later when the licensed start to design and build the local manufacture plant).

This soon will transform from a breakthrough science project, to a full business project, precisely a Franchise business.  This is a task for a man or company with this type of expertise, how to convert a start up business into a franchise, the good news is that there is a lot of companies capable to do this.  I believe that the franchise will assure a limit to the profit, this is big business 30% annual profit is very good.

Every license must to look for the best minds, companies and universities in their region to continue the R&D,  think in ways to produce a more hi speed manufacture process, and all time lower cost.

For global collaboration methodology and tools I recommend www.assembla.com (http://www.assembla.com) they are the best.

This is my guest for the nine licences: 1- Intel corporation, 2- Samsung electronics, 3- TSMC, 4- Global Foundries, 5- STMicroelectronics, 6- UMC, 7- Texas Instruments, 8- LG electronics, 9- Toshiba semiconductor.    In the line up are Hynix, Micron, Infineon, Freescale, Renesas electronics.  Also can include Google, Apple.  Anyone of this companies will pay billions for a licence.

My fear is that kind of mega companies with billions in cash will eat the small team of Philip.  He is a talented and dedicated inventor, but Will Philip ride this type of mega corporate monsters?, At this time I know that philip must to be on top to ensure the philanthropic view, but i don't know about the business mans needed, a circle of egoistic business mans around of Philip will kill the philanthropic view.

The Eternal God be with us !
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on November 14, 2012, 04:18:01 PM
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.

I now have some huge fears that quenco will just be snuffed out like some dust mite in the midst of this.

 :o
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on November 14, 2012, 04:19:29 PM
Powering lasers through heat.

http://phys.org/news/2012-11-powering-lasers.html (http://http://phys.org/news/2012-11-powering-lasers.html)


Interesting I thought if they could power lasers then they should also be able to power masers by heat and converting microwaves to electricity is much more efficient than light at the moment. (90%)
These people seem to think that electrons can only tunnel from hot to cold, maybe that is the case without the Quenco barrier although electronic chips should always be above ambient anyway.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on November 14, 2012, 06:10:10 PM
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.

I now have some huge fears that quenco will just be snuffed out like some dust mite in the midst of this.

 :o
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. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on November 14, 2012, 06:40:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mikestocks2006 on November 14, 2012, 07:59:36 PM
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.

Speaking of lasers, is it related to this?
 
"This leads to a theoretical coefficient of performance (COP) of up to 700%. A COP = 200% can be easily achieved..."
 
Self powered laser pistol revolutionizes warfare (http://nerdtrek.com/self-powered-laser-pistol-revolutionizes-warfare/)
Five years ago, Dr. Victor Klimov at Los Alamos National Laboratory produced a permanent solution to the world’s energy crisis.  This work is printed in leading physics journals of the world and was validated by two US National Labs: LANL and NREL.  It is scientific fact so look it up before you disrespect in the comments below.
Nanocrystalline power is what we’re talking about here folks.  The solution to the world’s energy crisis lies in tiny nanoycrystalline solar cells which can absorb the light of a specific wave length in such a way that one photon input to a solar cell can energize more than one output electron.  When the output electron absorbs a photon, it disappears for a short amount of time into the quantum field.  Once in the virtual state, the electron can borrow energy from the vacuum and then appears in our reality.  After this the highly excited electron (with all its excess energy taken freely from the active virtual state vacuum) can energize up to 7 output electrons.
This leads to a theoretical coefficient of performance (COP) of up to 700%. A COP = 200% can be easily achieved and it has been, as have been higher values. The experiment has also been replicated successfully and validated by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden Colorado. [Herb Brody, "Solar Power - Seriously Souped Up." New Scientist, May 27, 2006, p 45].
 
http://nerdtrek.com/self-powered-laser-pistol-revolutionizes-warfare/ (http://nerdtrek.com/self-powered-laser-pistol-revolutionizes-warfare/)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lancaIV on November 14, 2012, 09:03:02 PM
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on November 14, 2012, 09:38:56 PM
                        @mikestocks2006 (http://www.overunity.com/profile/mikestocks2006.2635/)Interesting but different, Kathrin Sandner and Helmut Ritsch have come up with an idea to turn the energy supplied by hot tunneling electrons into a Laser and I speculated if a Laser why not a Maser which would at least double the electricity that could be produced which is about 40% for light.

No vacuum energy needed.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on November 15, 2012, 07:27:10 AM
I believe Quenco is already the most efficient by converting heat directly at 100% conversion.
Any other method that converts heat to electrical current using additional steps, can only function with additional loss.

Though if you think about it, if you have something that is always available and you lose some of it when getting it, does it really make any difference even if you lost half of it?

 :D

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on November 15, 2012, 01:21:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on November 15, 2012, 05:28:26 PM
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.

I am not sure how the loss or efficiency in the quenco can be calculated.

Using two different metals with different work functions causes a voltage difference at any temperature, so if an electron with a given level of kinetic energy can tunnel through the barrier between them, then it will lose some of it's kinetic energy. If the electron still contains enough kinetic energy it may be possible to tunnel back again, but now it requires more kinetic energy to go back because of the already existing potential difference.

Electrons with kinetic energy simply bounce around and transfer kinetic energy back and forth with other electrons in a scheme of adding and subtracting from other electrons. So if you have two electrons that do not have enough kinetic energy to tunnel through the barrier, then they might have an interaction that transfers all of one electrons kinetic energy to the other electron and now one electron can tunnel the barrier.

So in the end, it looks like over time, all the kinetic energy would eventually move all possible electrons across the barrier.
I am not sure if this is true, this is simply my understanding of what I believe is going on in the quenco chip.
We hope that Philip will give us a full understanding soon.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Qwert on November 15, 2012, 05:49:46 PM
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

LancaIV, good find. Further reading:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/CCL-310-300-p2.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5252176.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5252176.pdf

Abstract
This invention relates to a novel method of, and means for, directing energy through Si2 HSb2 in such a manner that normal energy parameters can be exceeded.

1. Process for preparing crystalline Si2 HSb2 comprising the following steps:

placing equal parts of Silicon and Antimony in a first mixture; ..........

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Xeno on November 16, 2012, 09:24:57 AM
Hello everybody, and my best regards to you Philip.
 
I hope things are progressing accordingly, and like other wise men already have pointed out, that u got ure base covered when u go live whit ure invention, not only whould it be sad to see another brilliant, kind person looking out for mankind, 6 feet under, their invention stolen and hidden away, history has a tendancy to repeat it self when one challanges the corrupt dark powers in control of this planet. Especially when one upsets so many aspects of it at the same time.
 
How does one hope to change the way the system works, if one does not know how the system currently operates, fully and completly ?
I hope for the sake of mankind u know of the implications this type of technology have.
Just as the current systems owners have "safety" measuers and "intruder" alert warning signals, fail safes and so on to guard their il begotten stolen and self percievd power, wealth and property.
 
So must u have if youre main goal is for the whole of mankind to benefit from ure invention.
Patents, yeah once upon a time it served its purpouse, nowdays tho...
6000+ and counting, tc2800 saws, military application, 2 wolfs and a sheep vote whats for dinner, swimming whita group of great whites wearing nothing but a bloody meatsuit, if it looks like poo smells like poo taste like... need i add texture size densety and volume ? its resistance and displacment in water ?
 
Why would a bankrobber warn the bank hes gonna rob before he robs it ?
 
He doesent... thats just stupid.
 
They say there are 2 ways to change the system, either from whitin, or by not playing by its rules, forcing it to adept, preferable via problem reaction solution.
Either only works by outsmarting youre oponents.
 
Why do u think theyr trying to clamp down on the internet ? or why the president of usa have to power to shut it down ?
 
What have the internet brought to challange tptb ?
 
What say history about the main work force behind almoast everything that have been built, the heavy labor, still true to this day, altho in modern times somewhat disguised, via the economic system...
 
When the time is right, would reccomend doing a show and tell on ted.com share ure vision for the future whit quenco to millions of people :)
But before going public...
Record a full disclosure leaving nothing out, open source public domain, that goes on the internet inc u meet ure maker by the hands of those who would like nothing better then to supress this kind of technollogy for their own benefit, youre safety line aswell as mankinds. Ofc several bakups different places ppl u can trust etc, and none of you or ure companions can have nothing to lose, it will be used against them once its on their radar.
Any and all the dirty tricks in the book, treaths kidnapping murder etc, for them its buissnes as usual.
 
Hope for the best but always prepare for the worst.
Those who fail to prepare, are preparing to fail.
Thats my 2 cents, a lifetime of observation and some common sense.
Knowledge is power, over ureself, ignorance is power, that someone else have over u.
 
My best regards, wishes and good luck to u Philip
 
And may all of mankind benefit from quenco, putting and end to the energy wars, paving the way for world peace and tossing the corrupt monetary system in the trash where it belongs whit the rest of the psycopaths using and manipulating it for their endless thirst for power and profit, raping and plundering this planet...
 
Respectfully yours
/Xeno
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on November 16, 2012, 09:39:39 PM
 Xeno,

WOW, you could probably lighten up just a bit. :o   Relax and take the dog for a walk and some fresh air.  8)
The stress of life is weighing heavy on you! :-[
Better days are coming!  ;D

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: steeltpu on November 16, 2012, 11:27:54 PM
We can hope better days are coming.   However anyone who doesn't believe in energy suppression might want to take a look at these 3 papers here:  http://www.overunity.com/7987/new-invention-of-motion-less-generation-of-electric-power/710/#.UKa6XcjLdb0 (http://www.overunity.com/7987/new-invention-of-motion-less-generation-of-electric-power/710/#.UKa6XcjLdb0)  which are titled Killed Inventors 1, Killed Inventors 2 and Killed Inventors 3.  To make it easy I will put them all here in one post.

   I don't want to scare any good inventors like Hardcastle off but it would be wise to take all possible precautions since it appears this could be a disruptive technology to many existing energy producers and battery makers as well as governments that collect tax money on gas, oil and so on.   If the governments are smart they will see that they can still tax new technology if they need to.    Something must be done soon though or they will destroy the ecosystem on this planet. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Xeno on November 17, 2012, 05:47:30 AM
The knowledge accumulated, observed and experienced over my lifetime is indeed a heavy burden to bear. It sucks the lifeforce, happiness and joy, untill ure nothing but an empty depressed shell of a man, making u sometimes doubt why u even bother anymore. But then u remind ureself, its for the advancment and benefit of mankind, if i can help warn others, so they dont make the same mistakes like so many other before them, whit the knowledge i have, all it takes is 1 done right, succeeding by making the right choice, 1 that is and have invented the real mccoy, wise enough to heed the warnings, that doesent fail to prepare.
 
We all have our part to play, mine have always been to gather information, i have been doing so ever since my own father took his life, while i myself was still young and ignorant, becouse he was not strong enough to endure the burden of the same knowledge, aswell, he was the victime of a goverment emplyed nazi dentist's illegal experimental mercury based alloy, it expanded, cracking his teeth, rotting of his jawbone below the teeth, seeping into the body, poisoning him, and leaving the body sometimes via puss infested wounds it made, goverment coverup, and stalling via the judical system so much so they could write it off, and deny him economic compensation to sanitise his mouth, ruining him in the process, he was not the only victim.
But the apple does not fall far from the tree, i walk in his footsteps, but i am stronger then my father. And i have nothing to lose.
 
The "game" is rigged, psycopaths run the show, not doing everything to maximize profit is illegal, for the sake of the shareholders, the goverments enjoys their legalised theft they call tax. Those in their respective area of power does not want to lose it, and whit it the wealth it brings.
Recent studies have shown an avarage of 40% of the money a consumer pays for a product, goes straight into the pokets of the banks as profit via their debt enslavment system, all the loans to pay wages, loans consumers make etc, it all ads up. Fractional reserve banking, best way yet to funnel wealth and power from the people of the world to those who run it.
 
This marvelous invention (and all other potential free energy devices) endangers the maximised profit making and the power that goes whit it, of the corporations the goverment and banks (whit their respective individuals) of everything that needs energy in one form or another to run.
 
I enjoy playing the devils advocate, for the sake of honing my argumental skills, aswell as the different angles of perception one gets.
 
For the sake of argument, lets say i was a psycopathic mega corporation ceo, who does not have empathy, does not care for other people, they are but chesspeices, playthings for my own amusment, worthless eating cattle, stupid ignorant slave sheep, why would i not do everything in my power, via my wealth to stop someone challanging my empire ?
A few hobbys of mine would be flawless scheming, manipulation, technology, and how to get away whit murder (in the artform of making it look natural, or like a heart attack or an accident), getting someone to do the dirty work for me, and then getting rid of him if need be, covering my tracks.
Networked whit professional contract killers, hires those a coupple o times a year, no problemo. And the people i know and mingle whit are more or less like me some even works whit secret and highly classified stuff, black ops, politicians, bankers, lobbyists lawyers judges etc. We are the self appointed owners of this world and we do whatever the hell we like.
 
Quite a dangerous bunch of people, no ?
 
Its said psycopaths are betwen 1-2 % of the world population, and they are 5 times more frequently existing in the top positions of society, as in 5-10 percent of the worlds leaders are psycopaths, thing is tho there exist several different types of psycopaths, and the most dangerous types are the ones described above the extremly smart, intelligent ones whit an agenda, completly ruthless etc.
These are the people in control, the masters of slaves, who have molded the system so it rewards their evil nature.
 
To play their game that they are the masters of, by their rules, whitout being prepared, or knowing what one is up against, one does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out how that is going to end.
 
In the world of the blind the one eyed man is king.
Thanks to the internet more and more are waking up, starting to question the way things are. Hence the current biggest threat to tptb.
There is a reason for the existance of the saying, ignorance is bliss.
 
Quenco, unlimited extremly cheap electricity for life that doesent break, adaptable to everything.
vs a world whit monopolised expensive finite resources, outsorced cheap labor, poor quality, shit brakes trash it buy new, short term maximise profit recurring businessmodel, run by ruthless psycopaths.
 
Its easier to just let the madness continue, someone else will fix it syndrome, most people on this planet dont want to talk bout tuchy subjects, they live in their own bubbles, slaving away in a job they probably hate 8 hours or more a day, sure most have a clue shit aint right, and some digg a little untill they cant take it no more, but naivly thinking their leaders have their best interests at heart, will work it out for them, thats their job, aint that what we are paying tax for etc, they dont seem to have the mental capacity to think several steps ahead, or in different directions, or figure out why things are the way they are, just vote when its time to, shut up, and go back to sleep.
 
Its easier to ignore a problem, or not even acknowledge that it is, then trying to solve it in the optimal manner.
Its also easier to dismiss something as being wrong, becouse it doesent fit their perfect little indoctrinated world view, then to look up how shit works. 
Its easier to let someone else do the thinking and decitionmaking for u to just gobble up and thats that.
 
Iv lost count on how many times people have told me i think to much, iv observed it only happens when talking bout controversial subjects, things that are bad, that seems to make people depressed, people dont want to know how bad shit realy is, hehe even my own mother say she would go insane if she would think bout the stuff i do...
 
I look forward to the day shit turns around, i hope and long for it, but it wont happen by it self, nor will it happen by ignoring the problems we face.
 
Unlimited Free energy is THE game changer, its the key for the next step, the holy grail, and it is what powers advanced space travling civilisations in the universe.
 
People of this world still struggle whit the basics, food heat water and roof over their head.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on November 17, 2012, 07:55:03 AM
Xeno,  Sorry to hear about your father.   It took me quite a while to wake up the the role dentists play and I totally understand.  I do believe most dentists are conditioned or brain fed by the pharmaceutical and medical machine to keep us all buying their drugs and keep us half sick so as to always need their services and drugs.  IMO they are busted on the mercury thing but it will be decades before they fess up to that if ever.  By then they'll be using something else.  But I'll say for the purpose of this thread and forum your info is a bit over the top and probably most don't want to hear that much info.  I can take it and largely agree.  But what can the average person do?
  At first I thought it would be best if Phil totally open sourced this but then I realized it's not something even the better home electronics builders could make.  It needs the resources of some wealthy companies to build these and crank them out to where they can start getting into the hands of the many in need.   Right now enough people know about Quenco including Stanford university staff as well as backup people he has stated have his complete info so it's not going to go away by any easy means.  The Internet has really brought power to the people in many ways.    Awareness of the dark side is key in making decisions. 
  While it may look like many people are asleep I think many more people are waking up now but they choose to focus on a better world.   So while they may look asleep they just may be bringing about a better world by focusing on it.  Do you know what I mean?  You empower that which you focus on.   I've said it here before but I'll say it again.   What a wonderful world it will be with Quenco. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: JouleSeeker on November 18, 2012, 02:29:59 AM
Dear Philip --

This is Dr Steven Jones, aka PhysicsProf and JouleSeeker, emeritus professor of physics.  Just had an email from e2matrix, who called attention to your request for validation at a university.

I have access to very good measuring devices and helpful colleagues at three universities:
1.  Utah Valley University (Orem, Utah)
2.  Brigham Young University (Provo, Utah)
These are close to where I now live and have excellent equipment -- and, further but still excellent:
3.  University of Missouri (Columbia, Missouri), which has a team now studying "cold fusion" - better called, "anomalous excess heat".  I gave an invited seminar at the Univ of Missouri on 25 Oct 2012 regarding alternative energy, "freedom energy" in particular.  The talk was well-received.

I would be very happy to work with you in getting a validation at one or two of these universities.

Sorry for taking so long to respond to your request, but I was just informed about it this evening by e2. 

Please let me know if I can be of help.  My web-site, so you can get to know me better:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/

Regular email:  ProfSJones@gmail.com

Sincere best wishes,
Steven E Jones

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on November 18, 2012, 06:55:33 AM
Dear Steven,


thanks for the contact.


The need for a reputable University to do the $10 experiment is perhaps uncertain except to say that any replication of a violation of the Kelvin interpretation serves to remove the barrier of the status quo which is paralysing energy physics.


The experiment has been done now by a few people but not by a known University.The need for the scientific method to be applied goes without saying for there to be an explosion of interest, but any University doing this experiment will find the response will be almost venomous.


That being said the first thing is to do is to qualify the term $10, the parts are indeed cheap but the time spent and equipment needed to be considered bullet proof are not trivial. However to obviate the need for temperature sensors that are accurate enough to satisfy skeptics I have employed a method of encasing the device (the Radio Tube) in a block of Aluminum (or even better copper or Silver) surrounded by an insulating layer and then inside another block of metal, simple thermal modelling then shows that it is impossible to have a delta T across the device exceeding 0.01K for a easily measured 10K delta T on the outside container (measured by thermocouples in quadrants), the thermocouples used are of course group calibrated.


Having removed delta T across the device it is then necessary to eliminate the other possible sources as have been suggested.

I will deal with them here.


Some have claimed radioactivity of the Tube, given a measured current of say 4uA and a mass of material on the Cathode reasonably calculated at less than 0.1gm we clearly have about 0.001Mole of the relevant material, the occurrence of radioactive isotopes is very small (less than 0.0001%), so that give a total possible radioactive source of 0.00000001Mole, and given a radioactivity half life for the possible isotopes of many years (otherwise the 30 year old valves radioactive material would have decayed to near Zero) we can use a sensible max of 10,000 beta emission per second or say a femtoamp. As the current is uA's then fA's is totally insignificant. In any case if it were radioactive we would not need to heat the tube to see that current.


RF, if the device under test is a diode with low barrier potential then RF could be rectified if it is induced by the wires connecting the DUT to the external load. Obviously the use of shielding would attenuate, so the simplest mode of elimination is to run the DUT unshielded and then rigorously shielded. Further we can add capacitors to short RF so seeing a reduction in the measured current if it is simply rectified RF. Of course other instruments cam be applied to detect such RF as is present. We of course need to run the experiment with a (temporary) shorting link across the DUT to prove the effect is not Seebeck or thermocouple. These are silly as we use identical wires but critics say many things. Of course we need to ensure that the termination at the load are thermally of the same temp so that we cannot be accused of inducing and instrument error, and of course equal at the hot end so no claim of a delta T across the DUT.


I guess I can say a lot more but at the end of the day a team at a respected University should come up with its own protocols.


All I can say is that it works and Kelvin is wrong.Any University having the guts to do this will be part of an exciting part of history, and will be by my reckoning the 5th to do so, but the first to do so with unimpeachable independence.


Regards


Phil
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on November 18, 2012, 07:35:29 AM
Philp:

I don't understand your train of thought here.  Since you will be releasing your actual device in less than two weeks, there is no need for any sophisticated measuring equipment or sophisticated thermal setups.  I am assuming that Dr. Jones wants to test your actual released device, and not attempt to replicate the test tube experiment.

If I recall you stated that your released device will output on the order of watts of power, enough to power an iPad.  So there are any number of trivial experiments that could be done to confirm your claims.  For example, you could embed the device in epoxy such that water cannot infiltrate.  Then run the two wires to a resistor of the correct value to dissipate several watts of power and monitor the heat produced by the resistor and monitor the DC voltage (approximately 5 volts) with an ordinary multimeter.  Put the Quentron device embedded in epoxy into a small aquarium that is thermally isolated from the table top with styrofoam legs.

So the setup is a small aquarium filed with water with the Quentron device in the water.  The two wires lead out of the aquarium and connect to a resistor nearby.  You monitor the voltage across the resistor and thus the power dissipated by the resistor.  You monitor the temperature of the water in the aquarium.  What you should see is continuous DC power dissipated in the resistor while the temperature of the water in the aquarium drops over time.

So, in summary, it would be great for Dr. Jones to test your device but since the power output is on the order of watts, not microwatts, no sophisticated apparatus or measurement devices are needed to confirm that the device works as claimed.

MileHigh
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: JouleSeeker on November 18, 2012, 08:35:58 PM
  Thanks for the reply and information, Philip.

Two of the universities I mentioned above have (I believe) the equipment needed to do the experiment justice, based on what you have described.  But only one of them likely has the "guts" to challenge status-quo physics.  This is the group at the Univ of Missouri (UM).  They are already raising eyebrows by doing "cold fusion" research...  and by inviting me to speak there last month.  This is the ONLY university in the US and Canada that I know of that would have both the expertise and the guts to do the experiment.

They have excellent calorimeters and calorimetry skills, which should prove useful.  One would need an understanding regarding the "intellectual rights", and I suggest that "renting" the equipment would be advisable to avoid problems down the road, with you and me as "visiting scientists".  The team there would assist the visiting scientists, the latter being in charge.

I have a good friend (going back over 20 years) there who I believe would be willing to help.  I would need (privately I think) a little more information about just what you have in mind for the test, and what results one might expect from a successful test, so that I can begin serious discussion with him and the team there.  If you agree, of course!
Snail mail if you wish:  Dr Jones, PO box 325, Spring City, UT 84662, or email is fine with me. If it is possible to use a high-sophistication existing calorimeter rather than building something from scratch, I believe that would save money and increase credibility of the experiment.

Where are you located?  I'm in Utah at present; have a son moving to Missouri (already a place there), and a daughter in the NE. Would you want to be involved in the experiment, present I mean? 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on November 18, 2012, 09:57:14 PM
Hi Dr. Jones,  It's great to see you here and in communication now with Phil.   Sorry I don't login more often over at the OUR forum or I would have seen your message and replied sooner to you.   I believe Phil is now near Stanford University in California.   

I'll just state for Phil that having seen JouleSeekers (Dr. Jones) posts over the last year or so that I feel he is another very altruistic person with only the best of intentions for humanity and advancing alternative energy.  He has offered at his own expense some rewards to those who are advancing things in alternative energy as well as providing hundreds of solar funnel cookers to people in developing countries at his own expense.   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on November 18, 2012, 10:00:40 PM
Is this the Quenco we are talking about, the things that are supposed to be being manufactured right now at Stanford University in Palo Alto California?

Isn't it a little late for "university validation" since you are supposed to be doing a commercial rollout on... when was the latest postponed date? Nov 30?

And what's the matter with Stanford, anyway.... aren't they a major university, located right smack dab in the bleeding center of Silicon Valley, surrounded by all kinds of chip making plants and out-of-work physicists and EE types?




They are just questions, Leon.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on November 18, 2012, 11:31:13 PM
With Quenco at the brink of launch that experiment which will only lead to a mountain of skepticism and disbelieve and likely fail any peer review process big time is kind of redundant. Why show a microscopic effect when you have the means to go big, very big and dissolve any doubt.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on November 19, 2012, 01:27:16 AM
I think some of you should read the first line I wrote re Steven's offer (where I said in so many words that it is likely moot), and also note that I admitted some time ago that my offer of 25K was a tad petulant given the Quenco's imminent arrival.


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.


On the flip side of this argument is that some will say the Quenco does something other than the Tube device, well for completeness lets have a working Quenco and a working Tube, where is the harm when attacking status Quo to have multiple and differing tests?


BTW it is clearly obvious the snide comments are from those that are so nasty as to want me to fail, sad people that you are. Stanford provides me with facilities, not believers or skeptics, just machines. If you ahd been there you would know it is like a city full of many many projects, almost all hush hush and guarded. The people there are the same as people everywhere else, they are busy with their own things.


Last week I obtained all the materials for the production of 100cm2 of Quenco, this week we hope to actually start what is expected to be about 4 hours of ALD work and a few of PVD. I forgot about Thanksgiving so I am going to need every day up to the 30th to finish, but I am not panicking and believe we will make it with a few days to spare.


I have a number of meeting with licencees coming up and will be providing actual quenco to them so that they can complete the purchase of licences, I also expect to be able to fabricate the power source for a phone though it is really a generic 5.1V usb port power source so it can power almost any tablet or phone. I am going to mount it on the back of either a Nexus 7, or Nexus 4 (currently out of stock).
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on November 19, 2012, 02:54:07 AM
You are wrong about me, if you are indeed snidely referring to my _questions_ as snide comments.

There is nothing in this world I would like better than to see you succeed with real Quencos that perform as you claim. I could only benefit, because after the world-wide revolution it would cause, I will be one of the people with the skills and knowledge to continue to succeed.

If you win, Phil, everyone benefits (the survivors anyway), even me. Your paranoia about people wanting you to fail is just another symptom of your delusional system and doesn't reflect reality. Is there anyone here who genuinely wants Phil to Phail? Iph so, I mean IF SO.... please speak up so he'll know you are real.

If you lose, however..... I mean if you fail to meet your Nov 30 deadline or your Quencos don't work.... not much will change. Not even you.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on November 19, 2012, 04:35:02 AM

I use my real name.


Tinselkola says
Is this the Quenco we are talking about, the things that are supposed to be being manufactured right now at Stanford University in Palo Alto California?Isn't it a little late for "university validation" since you are supposed to be doing a important commercial rollout on... when was the latest postponed date? Nov 30?And what's the matter with Stanford, anyway.... aren't they a major university, located right smack dab in the bleeding center of Silicon Valley, surrounded by all kinds of chip making plants and out-of-work physicists and EE types?
They are just questions, Leon.


Alsetalokin says
Hey, what's to complain about? I see that Professor Steven Jones is trying to arrange for university validation of PJH's experiment. I wonder if they'll be in time for the Nov 30 rollout. I also wonder what Stanford U. -- in the very heart of Silicon Valley, where the population density of EEs and physicist types is greater than anywhere else in the world -- is doing manufacturing something that still needs to be validated by Brigham Young University in Utah before it's accepted as real.

And above this Tinslekola says he is for me and Quenco etc


But on the moletrap Alsetalokin says
Do you suppose those 1 million petrodollars he wants for a license are going to be worth very much if his device were actually to work? Oh pleeeeeeeeeeeze Jeeeeeeeesus let him succeed. I so want this entire world to go down the tubes in internecine strife and upset economies.

Alsetalokin, Tinselkola? whatever you cowardly want to call yourself, you are a 24K evil loser and speak with a forked tongue.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: JouleSeeker on November 19, 2012, 06:51:53 AM
...

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.
...


Agreed, Philip, and thank you.  Let me add that I stand willing to do an "independent experiment" at any time.   I do not wish to pressure you especially with all you have on your plate in the next few weeks.

We have email communication; just let me know when/if you wish to do the independent verification tests at a major university.
--Steven
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on November 19, 2012, 07:17:27 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: ramset on November 19, 2012, 02:06:35 PM
Dear TEOTWAWKI,
 

 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!"
---------------
Change has been coming for quite some time now!
 
Batteries not included.........
 
Chet
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: WilbyInebriated on November 19, 2012, 03:25:53 PM
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!"

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,742063-3,00.html
[i have conceived] a means that will make it possible for man to transmit energy in large amounts, thousands of horsepower, from one planet to another, absolutely regardless of distance. i think that nothing can be more important than interplanetary communication. it will certainly come some day. and the certitude that there are other human beings in the universe, working, suffering, struggling, like ourselves, will produce a magic effect on mankind and will form the foundation of a universal brotherhood that will last as long as humanity itself. - nikola tesla

"is tesla to signal the stars?". electrical world. april 4, 1896. pp. 369.
the possibility of beckoning martians was the extreme application of [my] principle of propagation of electric waves. - nikola tesla


this is to demonstrate that while tesla did some amazing things, he is not infallible. and... just like every great genius, he has the capacity to make incredibly wrong decisions and conclusions.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on November 19, 2012, 05:16:32 PM
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.
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.

I think Phil could do with taking more of a football manager's perspective with communication, since it is not necessary nor expected for one to respond to every drunken rambling coming from a crowd.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: steeltpu on November 19, 2012, 07:07:16 PM
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.

As usual you are the one who has started insults and NEGATIVITY.  Do you not see that?  So I've got one for you.  You are a Negistor.   Negistor = Resistor of all things positive and hopeful.  Will do anything to turn things negative.  No respect for others.  TK the Negistor,  a selective and especially nasty form of Troll who largely takes on the most hopeful of inventions.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on November 19, 2012, 07:35:34 PM
Here are some more rhetorical questions for you.

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...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on November 20, 2012, 12:19:52 AM
 :o
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on November 20, 2012, 12:27:13 AM
Here are some more rhetorical questions for you.

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...
LOL - not just one Red Herring but a whole handful.  And you were the one telling me not to pull the MIB card...   
 I think Lumen is seeing the future for TinselKoala
ROTFLOL



Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mrsean2k on November 20, 2012, 01:45:05 AM
@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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on November 20, 2012, 05:26:12 AM
@mrsean2k:
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Qwert on November 20, 2012, 06:22:28 AM
@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?

As strong evidence for his theory, PJH too easy goes irritated in his response to critics.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: catbauer24 on November 20, 2012, 06:26:51 AM
@TK, no insult, just curious though...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on November 20, 2012, 07:35:13 AM
@Cat.... hmmmm...... well, yes, I'd have to say that I do....
 ;)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: catbauer24 on November 20, 2012, 08:25:43 AM
...
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.

Are you saying you'd rather a disruptive technology not come out, or have it phased in over decades so as to produce the least benefit over the longest amount of time?  The military knew the application of transistors (errr... how about all microprocessors these days?)  Basically, every country has the ability to match the US drone capability... minus the technical integration ability.  All the info is out there for anyone to do it, the problem is people with the know-how are nearly all citizens of the democratic world.  So, the nation with the sharpest 'tech' edge wins out, regardless of energy.  Techy / science people rather dislike working for dictators due to the 'pressure' they are under... aka their life depends on success.  And N. Korea wonders why their missile program is a joke?  There may be a few scientist to put their lives up for their dictators, otherwise, nearly all head to greener pastures.  They are smart after all, right?  So, the free world is safe after all, no need to sweat TK.  Sheehan works out in the open on SLV in a uni setting, minus ostracization from a lot of his peers, there are others too so Hardcastle is not the first to work in this area, or even claim to 'have done it', case in point the tube test.  He claims a bigger effect, as you point out, has not been interdependently verified, as he (group?) is working towards.  So yes Phil can be criticized for past expectations, and for getting uneasy about you / others pushing his buttons, at the end of the day he's not soliciting funds, so we wait, and the while, you can make fun of him, and we can make fun of your doomsday predictions and years of underunity work.  At least he's not playing with magnets, or confused about how they work, right?   ;)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: neptune on November 20, 2012, 01:17:58 PM
You know, sometimes, almost in spite of myself, I find myself having respect for TK. No one can deny that he is a knowlegeable and Educated man. He asks some pertinent questions sometimes. I guess its just a shame he never went to Charm School.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on November 20, 2012, 07:01:20 PM
@mrsean2k:
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 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.


 Regarding your conclusion on suppression I see a number of other alternatives.  Times are changing.   That's one thanks to the Internet.   It could also be that the people watching do not yet know if Quenco is valid so they are waiting to see before making any big moves.  Or maybe they already think it only has potential in very low power apps.  And since Phil is not an American I'm not sure if that might play into preventing our government from seizing the concept but it may come into play.   It could also be that our government finally sees more need for alternative power.  There are so many other conclusions that it is simply not an either this or that as you have stated.  I'm fairly certain no interested parties are going to want to interrupt things until they see an actual working unit and details of a real world economically feasible plan to produce it.  I'm sure there are even better conclusions than what popped into my morning fog so far ;)
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.   
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. 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Qwert on November 20, 2012, 07:34:05 PM
Cool down, guys. November the 30th is near. At last we'll go to heaven, for sure. ;)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on November 20, 2012, 10:57:58 PM
Sorry... I just can't resist.

@Cat: you are comparing Quenco to transistors. A more appropriate comparison, wrt its world-changing effect and its importance to science, would be to the atomic bomb or the discovery of radioactivity. It will be even more militarily significant, though, because atomic bombs are only good for one thing: deterrence and large scale destruction. 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.

Why don't you take a look at Boston Dynamics and some of the robots they build. They have one that's about the size of a toy truck that is semiautonomous and can jump over a 10-foot tall chainlink fence. Right now, its operational range and endurance is limited by its power supply. Power it with Quencos and its range and endurance will be unlimited, and it can carry a payload of, say, 500 grams of cheddar cheese to wherever you like, burrow into the ground and wait....and wait..... and wait...... for years if necessary until some hungry rodent comes by. Just for one example. I'm sure you can think of other interesting things besides cheddar cheese it could be carrying.

@neptune: I almost respect you too, even though I know a lot less about you than you do about me.   ;)

@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.

Quote
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"?
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.
Quote
 
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.
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on November 21, 2012, 12:03:30 AM
TIN

Of course Quenco power chips can be used as part of a weapon, I wonder how many people have been killed by electric cars already?

Probably less then have died in that time period of hunger or thirst.

Cheap Quenco power will be able to supply fresh water and food to everybody, even in deserts water can be condensed from the air.

Plastics can be made from air as well with enough energy to utilise, as well as fuel if it is ever needed.

It will take several years for Quenco to be the main producer of power for the world, in that time a foundation will be set up, hopefully not just to help end extreme poverty and lack of education but to use Quenco to make the world a nicer and friendlier place.

You never know for a small fee I might even manage to get you on the foundation. ;D

Just think an engineer who thinks the second law of thermodynamics is sacrosanct becoming a Quenco convert and helping to design a type one civilisation.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on November 21, 2012, 03:18:31 AM
@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".

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.

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?

And before you embarrass yourself by answering I'll do you a favour.... that isn't a question, it's just a snidey comment.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on November 21, 2012, 05:50:34 AM
@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?
Quote
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.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/invention/stats.html
I don't know about the other kinds of suppression.... see below. Nor do we, as the American People, have the right to know what _nonpatented_ inventions have experienced this kind of action.... because nobody has to tell us, like they do for the patented ones.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
But why should I be embarrassed? I'm not the one making extravagant claims without support.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: catbauer24 on November 21, 2012, 08:19:56 AM
....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.
....

Please promise us you'll do everything you can so that the world is not subjected to such a deadly thing as free energy!!  At least you have convinced everyone it is a terrible idea... if you keep your work up we'll be safe for sure...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on November 21, 2012, 11:23:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on November 21, 2012, 11:59:17 AM

Philip Hardcastle
He has made ​​great strides.


Yeah, it underestimated the time to implement his invention, and we all happened and understandably, knowing that he works with machines that lend at universities, there is a whole bureaucracy, besides the technical details, but has made great strides in a short time.


How many of us have heard of great ideas that work in a laboratory, but it takes many years and a large budget when being deployed commercially, Philip has done all this without asking for a dime from anyone, all with their own money , risking not only their live but their financial future.


It also has a patent in a few months will be in everyone's hands.


If Philip delay the launch day, I'll understand. He is spending time and money, I only spending a short time reading and writing a few lines of text. (I also damaged oven and melted two tubes, proving that it is true the experiment proposed by Philip).


Yes I share with all, the fear that Quenco, be used for purposes of mass destruction, but there is no way to prevent this, the only thing we can do is educate the human being, to learn from history it's much better, the path of personal sacrifice for the common good, that the path of war and mutual destruction.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: ramset on November 21, 2012, 03:07:50 PM
Sounds more like a challenge of a different flavor.........
 
We all know the right thing to do ,..In some ways we always have !
 
The fact that 5 billion plus souls on this rock can't voice an opinion here, due to the fact that just surviving from day to day is all consuming [never mind no infrastructure, medicine, clean water, etc].
 The fact that their needs and lives could be enhanced ?
 
The challenge is to us ,the "haves"  [the real one percent].
 
Great machines sit idling ....potentials being wasted , whole industries dissapear from our midst.. Void of productivity. Save  for the possibility of resource,  the resource that eludes us  do to an old business model of greed and selfishness..........
 
Fear thats very easy to come by [ pandoras box], when Faith is in short supply!
 
We have a huge need placed in front of us .. A demand for goods and services!,
A market that the greedy would pray for...[ a market of 5 billion plus]
 
You wan't to change the world ?
 
 be that change!!
 
What works will you do?  Will you leave your fate in the hands of fear?
 
I hope not........
 
Thx
Chet
 
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on November 21, 2012, 04:43:57 PM
It looks like a fear of change is creeping in.
Tk says he can adapt, but yet he is the first showing signs of "future shock".

Relax TK, it will all be over soon.

I don't think the US will have much luck sequestering an international patent from Australia.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on November 21, 2012, 05:01:03 PM
It looks like a fear of change is creeping in.
Tk says he can adapt, but yet he is the first showing signs of "future shock".
Yawn. Wake me up when the future arrives.
Quote

Relax TK, it will all be over soon.
Soon....soon.... where have I heard that before?
Just as all electrical free energy devices need batteries, real working free energy devices are always going to appear..... soon.

Quote

I don't think the US will have much luck sequestering an international patent from Australia.

Those who do not remember history, are doomed to repeat it.

If PHJ had stayed in Australia and used the fine facilities there to produce his product, and the universities there to test it..... I'd tend to agree with you. But he's in Silicon Valley, and travels at the pleasure of the US Government as long as he's within the borders. "Your papers please" is no longer the cliche from old war movies, said by the jack-booted Nazi thug to the frightened Jewish grandmother. It's a daily event in the USA.... you have to prove who you are and your right to travel several times a day nowadays, and if you go by air..... you may despair.
What good is a patent -- or rather, a patent _application_ , even a public one, if no one can use the information in it to make anything that works?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Qwert on November 21, 2012, 05:14:26 PM
If Quenco's one square millimeter have power of five kilowatts, I'm afraid of ants when they accidentally get to a future warehouse stock; good story for a science - fiction writer.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on November 21, 2012, 05:42:51 PM
<snip<
@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.
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.

As far as suppression I'm not saying they all were suppressed only after becoming public -- just that many of them have gone that path.  I believe there are a many that may have been suppressed before going public however unless someone or the government is made aware of them the won't know to suppress them, i.e. there must be awareness before someone can take action.  I was mulling over some stories from the past and there are a lot where something seemed to be real  but then the inventor was killed, bought out and invention shelved, or paid off to go away.   I'll admit I haven't had the opportunity to verify all of those but there seems to be a lot of evidence to support that is what often happens and in a couple cases I have had personal contact with inventors to hear that is what happens. 

    However I think Quenco has enough interest from very big money companies that can benefit greatly from it that this will not likely take the same path as other inventions.   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on November 21, 2012, 05:56:14 PM
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.  Everyone has the opportunity for self sufficiency.   Robotics would take off big time and create a huge industry since they could do all the hard work with self contained power packs.   I could go on for a long while but I'll just say Imagine this :

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

Imagine(d) by  John Lennon
Brought to you by Quenco  :)

Ideally I would probably change a couple things in Lennon's lyrics but you get the idea.   There is a better world to be had if we start imagining it.   I'll say again a very important universal truth : you EMPOWER that which you focus on. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Qwert on November 21, 2012, 09:29:09 PM
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.

You must be five years old... well, maybe six: after all, you already know how to write. Tell me something about Santa Claus...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on November 21, 2012, 10:12:32 PM
I see more and more people living on the sea, people fed up with government telling what they can do, will once the infrastructures are in place, choose to build their own habitats on the ocean either semi fixed or fully mobile.

Even floating Hong Kongs. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on November 21, 2012, 11:08:16 PM
When all the people who sit around imagining the world of peace that John talked about _stop hiring politicians and generals who want war_..... then maybe it will happen.

Those people, though, are all full of love, have no weapons, eat vegetables for dinner, and make love. Meanwhile, the politicians, generals and Military-Industrial-Ikea complex depend for their livelihood on warfare, constant and simmering at low levels but which could "blow up" at any time.

If the generals and the peaceniks were to have a cage-fight.... who would you bet on?

"Right".... doesn't make might. "Peace" in Lennon's vision is seen as nothing more than a power vacuum by despots all over the world. We are human beings, we have millions of years of evolutionary history of bonking our neighbors over the head with big sticks, stealing their meat and their women, and trying to utterly wipe them out. The ones of us who were the best at that, survived to reproduce.... and then we learned to talk. It's been pretty much all downhill from there.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: WilbyInebriated on November 22, 2012, 12:20:42 AM
'right in two' by tool:

angels on the sideline
puzzled and amused.
why did father give these humans free will?
now they're all confused.

don't these talking monkeys know that eden has enough to go around?
plenty in this holy garden, silly old monkeys,
where there's one you're bound to divide it
right in two

angels on the sideline
baffled and confused
father blessed them all with reason.
and this is what they choose.
monkey killing monkey killing monkey over pieces of the ground

silly monkeys give them thumbs,
they forge a blade, and where there's one they're bound to divide it
right in two.
right in two.

monkey killing monkey killing monkey over pieces of the ground
silly monkeys give them thumbs, they make a club
and beat their brother down.
how they survive so misguided is a mystery.
repugnant is a creature who would squander the ability
to lift an eye to heaven, conscious of his fleeting time here

cut and divide it all right in two
cut and divide it all right in two
cut and divide it all right in two
cut and divide it all right in two

fight over the clouds, over wind, over sky and
fight over life, over blood, over air and light,
over love, over sun, over another.
they fight till they die over words, polarizing.

angels on the sideline again
been so long with patience and reason
angels on the sideline again
wondering when this tug of war will end

cut and divide it all right in two
cut and divide it all right in two
cut and divide it all right in two
cut and divide it all right in two
right in two
right in two

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLjrD-oXkhA
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: minnie on November 22, 2012, 12:33:28 AM
Hi,
  I think that if a new form of cheap energy were to come along on Nov. 30 that it would probably take decades for it to filter
through. Everyone knows how to make and handle the stuff we've known for so long.  Change would have to be quite slow
because most of us couldn't afford new equipment, and manufacturing involves long term investment which couldn't be
scrapped over night.
                   Something needs to happen and fairly soon. I think that "fracking" is just going that bit too far, seems
to me we've messed up the atmosphere, now we're attacking the very earth itself,
                                                                                                        John.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on November 22, 2012, 12:03:02 PM
Hi Everybody!

I am new to the forum but have many years experience in electronics in industry (electronic engineering within a semiconductor company). I currently run my own company in Cambridge, UK. I am not a physicist but do have limited knowledge and some good common sense (electronics HW is my thing) :)

I know this is probably a sore point at the moment (I know TK has had a hard time by lots of people for asking sensible questions - sorry TK, I know its frustrating to ask standard stuff but be reprimanded because of it - in real industry its normal to ask questions and normal to be skeptical) but I have to ask the following:

1. Does anyone have a link to a video showing quenco working - I know videos can conceal reality but it would be a good start!
2. Is the 30th Nov still on? If so, the quenco should already be manufactured otherwise he will likely need to reschedule.
3. He is working with Stanford Uni - have Stanford disclosed the relationship? If so, does anyone have a link?
4. To pull 20kW from a cm tile (as quoted as being possible) of quenco causes a lot of basic (to an engineer) issues. At, say a 10V output, this would equate to 2,000Amps. I havent done the math but thats a monster bit of cable to connect to a small tile. If we think differently and go for a 1V output then thats 20,000Amps - yikes! Once a bit of cable IS connected to the tile then the contact resistance (the resistance of the join between cable and quenco) will cause a massive increase in heat due to I2R losses. Has this been addressed?
5. There are devices appearing which harvest energy from heat fluctuations. Could the quenco effect simply be measurement errors and in fact its a number of small gradients over many surfaces (layers of quenco). If so, I am not so sure that 'layering up' the quenco will have any net benefit since the outer layers will insulate the inner ones. This is all speculation by me, I am no physicist and dont fully understand the mechanism behind how quenco is proposed to work. Does anyone know a physicist who can comment? PJH doesnt count, needs to be a 3rd party.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/21/thermal-nanotechnology-harvest-electricity/

SO, there you have it, my first post on OU - dont be too harsh, there arent any weird questions above - just sensible ones which havent been answered yet! Would love to get more answers!!!

Also, really, if he hasnt got the quenco manufactured as of today its not going to be much of a show on the 30th IMO  - manufacturing a 2nm film and packaging it such that its possible to connect even a small wire to it aint trivial.

For the record, I am a skeptic but desperately want to be proven wrong....please :)

Thanks for listening!

MBM
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on November 23, 2012, 01:39:47 AM
Madebymonkeys (http://www.overunity.com/profile/madebymonkeys.76803/)Hi, the last I heard Phil was still going for Nov. 30th but not being an American he overlooked the thanksgiving break which puts him under more pressure with less time then he thought.
He tried to get Quenco chip fabricated in Australia but unfortunately couldn't get the nano levels of a low work function metal oxide centimetre area chip flat enough.
So he went (at his own cost) to try to get a smaller less ambitious chip made at Staford University.
He and others tested his theory on a pentode ingeniously trying to block out all obvious sources of the micro current they got between thermo homogenous electrodes. (no cold sink).
I also really wish him and us all well.





 


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on November 23, 2012, 06:15:42 AM
The way I understand all the events up to this point is that he has already determined ALD and PVD times and the process is proven to work.

He has then ordered enough material to make a larger quantity for distribution to the licensees and to construct the demo device for the launch on Nov 30. (I believe he had the material at some time last week NOV 12 or so)

These are only single layer chips about 3mm diameter and the demo device will require about 25 to 50 chips to reach the 5.1v @ 3 amps required for the demo device.

Multilayer chips will be made as some point to get the voltage up to 50-100v but the process for this will be left to the chip manufactures.

That's the way I see everything up to this point!


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on November 23, 2012, 10:23:52 PM
Thanks guys,

You know, if he went for a larger tile he could have had it profiled and sliced the 'flattest', best parts out of the 'die'. Nobody goes for broke and tries to fabricate individual parts although this is a new process I guess.

I know the 30th is just round the corner when the big reveal will happen but, assuming nothing happens, can anyone shed more light on my questions?

With multilayer chips could these simply be stacked with insulators between? Sounds relatively easy. The interconnect and packaging hasn't been mentioned though?

Thanks.

MBM
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on November 23, 2012, 10:58:36 PM
@madebymonkeys

1- No, there is no working videos of quenco at this time, we hope this for the launch day !
2-  Be patience, the November 30 is the day.
3- Philip is working with the university of stanford, but not for the university, is a development with Philip own budget.
4- the 10kw from a single cm2 of quenco, is for hi voltage like 100v or 200V with hundreds of Quenco layers,  yes we know the problem to get out this quantity of power, but is just engineering, the biggest problem is the way to put so many heat in a single cm2.  Yes a lot of people here and philip know about the ohm law of current.
5- No the quenco dont work by fluctuations of heat (one side cold the another one side hot), quenco work in single hot reservoir (ambient heat).  Quenco work by thermionic and quantum tunnel mechanics.
6- Multilayer is another engineering problem for the quenco research and development center.

The problem know is have a Quenco single layer, all our best wishes for the success of Philip in november 30 2012, This is a invention that will easy the transition for a new society based in the human in harmony with the Nature !  God Bless Philip!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on November 26, 2012, 05:17:03 PM
The main site now says there will be a weeks delay in the launch.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: not_a_mib on November 26, 2012, 07:46:51 PM
The launch will probably get delayed until December 21 so that it can fulfill the ancient Mayan prophecy of great change on that day.

Patience is a virtue worth waiting for!

P.S.  Is it really true that the Yanks talk funny and drive on the wrong side of the road?  Being one myself, I could never tell if this is really true.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on November 26, 2012, 08:00:13 PM
I am surprised that there has not been more discussion of the possible physics at work in the device.  It would appear to of course use electron tunneling.  BUT the very interesting thing that Phillips seems to have understood and put into place, is that the thinner the material, the greater the probablilty of tunneling.  Very interesting  indeed.  This would explain why the thinner the material, the greater the output.  And then they are stacked of course.  The entire subject of electron tunneling is facinating indeed!
 
Press on, Phillip!
 
Cheers,
 
Bruce
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on November 27, 2012, 01:11:05 AM
Hi all

We are moving ahead, and Philip has the required materials and is manufacturing the first Quencos.

As we said before, a delay in the launch is more than acceptable, Philip is making a huge effort bringing this important development to reality in record time.


This is my update for the Ten licences: 1- Intel corporation, 2- Samsung electronics, 3- TSMC, 4- Global Foundries, 5- STMicroelectronics, 6- UMC, 7- Texas Instruments, 8- LG electronics, 9- Qualcomm, 10- Nvidia.    In the line up are Hynix, Micron, Infineon, Freescale, Toshiba semiconductor.  Also can include Google, Apple.  Anyone of this companies will pay billions for a licence.

All the best !!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Qwert on November 27, 2012, 08:36:58 AM
Meanwhile, something in subject:

http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/cobden/papers/Glazman_dot_review.pdf
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on November 30, 2012, 11:09:32 PM
Hi Guys,

Looks like we have a delay, it's now the 12th December :(
An update from Philip would be useful right now stating whether there has been any useful data obtained by the previously built prototypes.

PJH - how about an update? I know you are busy but there are lots of people here hoping this ain't all snake oil!

Thanks.

MBM
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: wideyed_tutank on December 01, 2012, 06:39:00 AM
@MBM
The following info is also available at the same site you visited:

"The launch will be when the device is finished + a few days to allow for photos etc
There will be a post here as soon as they are completed.
Production is under way this week, if this method works we will have Quenco's"

Which language would you like me to translate that into?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 01, 2012, 09:36:42 AM
Yeah, I saw the info on the site, well done for spotting it too. I also saw very similar text and assurance of manufacturing 'in process' etc etc in previous posts and on the website.

Some work has apparently been done on manufacturing (see previous posts) - some useful data would have been generated, whether it be how to change the manufacturing process or that it simply doesn't work quite right.

So far there has been no data, images, comment offered regarding what's really happening at Stanford - good or bad!

The patent application is filed and a priority date should have been set (I tried to find the application number for the patent but missed it - do you have it?). Some basic info can be shared!

http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=AvantGo&op=ReadStory&sid=3430

PJH doesn't work for the guys on this forum but we are all keen to know what's happening - we want it to work but he needs a lesson in managing expectations. It sounds like he isn't sure that the next manufacturing run will produce working Quenco but he gives a date of 12th Dec! More info on the 'external issues/problems' issues would just be good.

I want to believe - there is just no information TO believe at the moment, just a pipe dream!

What is your general feeling about the Quenco project?

Thanks.
MBM
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mrsean2k on December 01, 2012, 01:41:20 PM
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.


If there's any behaviour that qualifies as interesting when it's manufactured to spec., it'll be interesting whether it's on time or not.



Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: wideyed_tutank on December 02, 2012, 12:05:43 AM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 02, 2012, 09:35:33 AM
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.


Hi,

Given the history so far I will be revising my expectations.
My comment about him managing expectations was made in order to help him 'preserve his credibility' - I am well aware of how difficult it is to get some things done, I am also well aware that guessing when they may be done, without any prior knowledge of what's involved, is silly.

The amazing claims about Quenco have been made to this forum, it would be great to have an update with some info (not a cut&paste of the website) helping us understand why the delays keep happening.

All I am asking for is an update from PJH although he is probably a busy man.

Thanks.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 02, 2012, 09:41:49 AM
@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.

I have had schedule changes on almost all of my projects, mostly bringing timescales in though. Being aggressive with scheduling is fine.....but so is contingency!

I agree about getting the thermal energy into the quenco - tricky challenge.

If everyone is to 'put their heads together' and solve challenges like the one you mention we should try to get the challenges defined by PJH. People, I suspect, would be happy to help - we just need some basic information in order to do this (this is not on the website).

Thanks.

Ps: does anyone know the patent application number - the only PJH one I can find relating to Quenco has lapsed due to non-payment of fees back in Summer 2012. Any help appreciated!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lancaIV on December 02, 2012, 09:39:48 PM
@Madebymonkeys:
http://www.ipaustralia.com.au/applicant/hardcastle-philip-julian-mr/patents/

Sincerely
                 CdL
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 02, 2012, 09:45:14 PM
@Madebymonkeys:
http://www.ipaustralia.com.au/applicant/hardcastle-philip-julian-mr/patents/

Sincerely
                 CdL

Many thanks, CdL :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on December 03, 2012, 01:07:32 AM
The actual most recent filed Quenco patent application is missing in that list.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on December 03, 2012, 10:55:15 AM
@Madebymonkeys:
http://www.ipaustralia.com.au/applicant/hardcastle-philip-julian-mr/patents/

Sincerely
                 CdL

Question: how many of these patents did become working prototypes or devices successfully launched in the market?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on December 04, 2012, 09:14:19 AM
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: peakprod on December 04, 2012, 12:06:36 PM
Philip, keep up the fantastic work that you are doing, ignore the skeptics, that is their purpose in life, they drive us to do better! Best regards peak prod (Gold Coast)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on December 04, 2012, 06:52:00 PM
Phil,  It's wonderful to hear from you again and thanks for another update.   At this time of the year in America people are so focused on the holidays that it may be a good thing it has taken a little extra time before launch.  If it happens before December 25th it may give people something hopeful to talk about in these difficult times during family get togethers.  If it happens after that I think it could also be a good time as people are always looking to the new ways and new things in a new year. 
    I think at this time any lack of attention on the Quenco is a good thing.  It's like a sleeper.  What is a sleeper?  I first came across that in car terminology.  A sleeper car is one that looks ordinary, stock, boring.  Under the hood is a powerhouse turbo-charged 1000 HP engine ready to blow off any hot looking sports cars that think they can impress others with their speed.   So Quenco may look like just another technology to make some energy but wait until the first ones come off the line in a device that never needs charging, never needs battery replacement and can run your whole lifetime without any other power input other than ambient heat.  I think it will grow a hundred times faster than the Internet if it is allowed and will be sought by everyone in these times when being independent of a destabilizing economic system can be so much easier if you have an independent power source.  Power to provide light to grow your own food indoors, heat your home, travel about without huge fuel costs.   It has the potential to be one of the biggest innovations of the Millenium. 
    Hope you get at least some time off to enjoy a Happy Holidays !   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Qwert on December 04, 2012, 11:09:39 PM
Phil, I'm at my climax when I hear from you.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mrsean2k on December 04, 2012, 11:18:20 PM
He's an infrequent poster, but if you're constantly wanking, I suppose there's a decent chance you will be, statistically speaking.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on December 05, 2012, 02:48:14 AM
Unfortunately the same old pattern is repeating itself.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Qwert on December 05, 2012, 05:01:49 AM
He's an infrequent poster, but if you're constantly wanking, I suppose there's a decent chance you will be, statistically speaking.

Looks like several others also feel like me, only they are more gentlemen.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hartiberlin on December 05, 2012, 08:47:43 PM



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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 05, 2012, 11:49:09 PM
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.

Excellent idea, that would also give no info away about the manufacturing process or materials so pretty safe to do. Even a pic of 'something' relevant happening would make the skeptics (me included) think things are more real :)

MBM.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 06, 2012, 12:59:13 AM
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.

It's all in the public domain - the unfortunate thing about patents is that they give your competitors a heads-up as to what you are working on and can give them up to 36months to create their own novel patent. There are options to limit the application info which is made public (limiting it to the abstract) until the patent is granted (this can help negate the risk to some degree) - your patent attorney will know all about this.

Quote
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 don't know if that's aimed at me but I don't want to 'posture and poke fun', I don't believe that I have either - I just want to believe this is real but there is no evidence to suggest it is, unless you can offer some?

Quote
I will not answer the barbs that pop up here, i will say thankd for the moral support from the kinder people here.

I think most people, deep down, are kind. I also think that most people can be easily blinded by extravagant claims (and hope) unless they are from a technical background in which case they will question everything. Questioning and providing proof are 'par for the course' in the field you are currently working in.
Basically, if you are going to claim things like 10kW from a 1cm tile you'd better be ready to prove it. Or at least show a tile of any size powering something other than a DMM. Or even demonstrate just how it's possible (on a technical level, not just abstract comments).

If you don't want to be asked questions, provide proof, wake up skeptics etc then its probably best to just keep quiet about your developments!

Quote
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.

When I started in business it was a real struggle to 'let go' and get help, eventually I did and the company now has a number of staff and is flourishing. It's good to get help - nobody knows everything :)
Its hard to share a dream sometimes.

Quote
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.

Don't rule out grants and funding from VCs or Angels. Contracts lawyers are expensive (my most recent one was just over £250 per hour) and you're likely to require some expensive engineers to get this off the ground......companies will be reluctant to license a patent without proof that the technology actually works as claimed and is manufacturable, this would require working models. Even Stanford won't be there to help forever, unless they take a stake in your company in return for use of equipment and some engineering resource? A percentage of something is better than 100% of nothing!
Mind you, I don't know how deep your pockets are :)

Quote
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.

People were drawn into the Steorn story by extravagant claims of abundant free energy and talk of changing the world. The reality was that they set dates for launches, missed them, set more dates, missed them, provided no proof of concept etc. Steorn even had some qualified engineers and scientists give the product a thumbs-up!

This may sound harsh but your Quenco story matches the one from Steorn fairly accurately so far. Once bitten, twice shy....as the saying goes. And you wonder why there are skeptics :)

If Steorn had stepped back (before getting all excited and talking about changing the world with magnets and acrylic), made a proof of concept and tested it properly, managed expectations, they wouldn't have ended up as they did........well, actually they probably still would have ended up as they did but their heads may have been held a little higher!
That said, Steorn did spin-out some side products as a result of their research into perpetual motion so all was not lost for them.

If things don't work out for Quenco there is every chance you may generate some saleable IP in the field of nanoscale manufacturing methods or 'some other stuff', who knows?

Quote
Anyway this is my last update before the launch.


Bye

Good luck, I hope it pans out well - don't be a Steorn, reel in the 'change the world' talk until you can actually prove it (that's genuinely good advice!) :)

MBM
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on December 06, 2012, 09:17:02 AM
My answer is simple, Quenco is 100% genuine, it has nothing in common with all the BS claims of Bedini, Steorn, Peswiki.


All those that have engaged with me privately and have an assigned or reserved licence I trust are 100% happy with me.



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.


So if posting here requires me to prove something then I simply will not.


Similarly I have pulled down the website.


I will now make a single statement;




Quenco is 100% real proved physics, the implementation at the scale of 2nm is very hard to do, we are still working on it.


Over the past year a lot of very good people at Australian and US research institutions have worked on this.


There are now a number or commercial partners who are fully behind commercialising the Quenco.


I have spent a small fortune and a chunk of my life doing this for the benefit of all.


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.


All I have done is try to share with you all what I could, some have appreciated that, some have ridiculed me.


A working device in the hands of an independent and reputable testing authority is the only acceptable proof.


I will do exactly that, I intend to ask the famous Australian Skeptic Dick Smith to do the testing.


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.


Thanks for the interesting comments.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on December 06, 2012, 03:15:28 PM
...
Quenco is 100% real proved physics, the implementation at the scale of 2nm is very hard to do, we are still working on it.
...


Hmm, there is a thing that makes me crazy with you. How can you say that it is "100% real proved physics" if you do not have yet any single working prototype?

I would say: "Quenco is a 100% You-want-it-to-work device." Phil, one thing is our wish, another thing is the real world.


 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on December 06, 2012, 05:20:58 PM
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.





Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: neptune on December 06, 2012, 05:41:05 PM
@Philip. I am very disappointed the you let the sceptics get to you. I have no doubt whatever that you are doing what you are doing with the very best of intentions. I am surprised that you did not forsee the situation that you find yourself in. Remember, that a forum has many more readers than writers, and a lot of people here, although silent, are fully supportive of what you are working on. I wish you every success, and hope we shall hear from you very soon.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on December 06, 2012, 06:11:42 PM
Keep up the good work.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mikestocks2006 on December 06, 2012, 06:33:43 PM
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
Hi Phil,
 
In terms of coverage and exposure (it was noted in earlier posts as not being as high as expected) don’t you think that having at least some web presence would be of benefit? Taking the website off line appears to be counter productive towards that aspect.
 
As far as Tesla, their cars are a bit pricey. Sportster close to 100k range, but the sedan is in the 50k before rebates.
If the funds are there, a Nissan Leaf could be an option in the 25k range. If they will not sell one without the batteries, purchase the vehicle, remove the existing battery power plant and replace it with the new quenco technology.
 
Nice work.
Thanks for posting,
Mike.
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on December 06, 2012, 06:42:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: neptune on December 06, 2012, 08:04:03 PM
I would guess that with the cost of replacement batteries at around £16,000, You could have your pick of Teslas without batteries at your local scrapyard, from £1,000 each.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on December 06, 2012, 08:19:14 PM
Very good point.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 06, 2012, 11:36:02 PM
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?

No we don't, and they aren't expected for another 30-50 years or so by which time the R&D will have cost the taxpayer well in excess of €100,000,000,000 or about $130,000,000,000. Yikes!

Quote
Quenco is not a matter of if...., it is a matter of when!

Maybe. We're a long way from being able to say 'when'....we are still at the 'if' or 'unlikely' (especially with the 1cm tile = 10kW claim!) stages :)

Quote
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.

And Hot Fusion differs from Quenco in what way (apart from the hot fusion process is known to work on paper)?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/16/nuclear-fusion-iter-jet-forshaw

Quote
Quenco will become reality once the required design becomes physically possible to build.

And economical.

Quote
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.

I hope it is :) If we could see a Quenco tile powering a cellphone that would be a great - even a handful of LEDs would be a good start :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 06, 2012, 11:48:36 PM
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.

Or even just make a proof of concept with a small DC motor (say from a handheld fan) with 2 wires and a Quenco tile. This would be much easier, cost next to nothing (for the fan) and has the benefit of having all the components visible. Using a car is a bit overkill and unnecessary expense I would say.
If you can prove the initial concept and start small (managing expectations!) then it should be an easy sell to the likes of Tesla if the concept is scalable (and economical).
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hartiberlin on December 07, 2012, 01:48:20 AM
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.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 07, 2012, 01:58:18 AM
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.
well said! humanity will remain, for the most part, inhuman until people start to embrace such ideas.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on December 07, 2012, 03:25:29 AM
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.
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. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on December 07, 2012, 03:29:06 AM
Please also take into consideration this is not something that can be readily made in someone's garage.  It takes high tech very expensive equipment to produce from what I understand.  Companies with this type of equipment stand to make huge profits if this pans out the way I think it will.  There is no reason for all the profits to go to the companies if this revolutionary concept can help so many in the world who don't even have clean water or any power at all and I believe Phil knows this and wants to insure everyone can benefit from his discovery. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on December 07, 2012, 03:17:13 PM
Cheaper food and water will just be the start.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Trino Cularoid on December 07, 2012, 03:28:52 PM
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...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 08, 2012, 09:21:29 PM
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on December 09, 2012, 12:18:53 AM
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.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 09, 2012, 01:14:31 AM
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.

Hmm. I don't know the full legalities but it 'should' be difficult to claim novelty (and a subsequent monopoly) on something which is fully documented (to the point where someone 'skilled in the art' could replicate) and in the public domain already?

Hey, just noticed the date....72hrs (ish) until the Quenco launch - I bet it will be postponed due to unspecified issues unrelated to Quenco again. :(
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: ramset on December 09, 2012, 07:32:05 AM
The little RED QuenCO
 
I suppose the Story should have had a few addendums?
 
Perhaps they came in and pestered the Hen for not being Timely with the
schedule of her work,    Mocking her a bit for the delays.
 
Yes ,That would be a good addition ....""look she said she would be done with the harvest by now .......... what a liar !!""""
Or       """OHHH look the stove needs wood ....How will she ever Hold that promise Now???? [Snicker Giggle]"""
 
But all things considered it still ends the same....
 
Cept this ain't a fairy tail !
Thx
Chet
 
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hartiberlin on December 09, 2012, 08:12:44 AM
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... ;=)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 09, 2012, 08:34:21 PM

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...

Totally agree.

Quote
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...

Very true, this would also be true even if it isn't open source. If there is money to be made then one man (or one foundation) won't hold all the cards, it simply won't be allowed.

If a license ever gets sold (money actually changing hands between companies) it will be for the purpose of gaining info and refining the process and improving it....at which point the license won't need a renewal, the company won't need to pay royalties, and the company can offer a better, cheaper product (potentially!). Basically patents can be worked around like you say!

Companies work around patents all the time, its a legitimate part of business.

Quote
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...

And work together for the greater good :)

Quote
Well although it is probably almost impossible to do nanometer structure layers for the common tinker man... ;=)

And Stanford so it seems :)

Stick with fusion!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on December 10, 2012, 12:43:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 10, 2012, 05:47:30 PM
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.

I think you have the wrong end of the stick - give the information away for free in order to have more institutions working on making Quenco a reality.
Nobody will give Quenco away for free, that could be counterproductive in some instances, as you suggest.

Quote
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.

No need, it's the same here in the UK (and probably everywhere else with a welfare state!).

Quote
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.

I agree, but giving the info away is my suggestion (not the product) - so that everyone can help to push an actual product to market....more people, more research, more chances of hitting a working solution.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 11, 2012, 04:18:50 PM
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...

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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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....

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

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?

Quote
Anyhow that really is my last comment here.
I doubt it.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: vrstud on December 11, 2012, 09:01:47 PM
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 :)


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 11, 2012, 10:26:48 PM
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 :)

Me too! Hopefully there won't be a 'catch 22' where you can't have a sample until you pay a million and you won't pay a million unless you have a sample!

The 'small fan' demo would be enough to get me believing, but right now.....I will eat my shorts if it happens :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lancaIV on December 11, 2012, 11:39:46 PM
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 12, 2012, 12:06:21 AM
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

Hehehe, hmmmm ....shorts.........doh!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on December 12, 2012, 12:32:37 AM
And 100% not here...

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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on December 12, 2012, 12:42:58 AM
Quentron.com is still 'under construction', I'll bet Mr. Hardcastle and his team are busy working behind the scenes to make this launch one for the history books. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 12, 2012, 01:25:27 AM
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

To be honest, Sarkaizen could have a point - it has been a lot of missed promises. A familiar pattern?
I have built lots of things (not related to OU) and yes, sometimes things are hard to do. But very few things appear to be approaching completion (a few days from completion in Quenco's case!) and then get delayed by so long....repeatedly.

As for being eager for the blueprint (haven't heard the word 'blueprint' since an old 007 movie!), I don't see an issue with that. The world ain't going to change if there is one patent holder sat in an ivory tower holding all the companies who could actually produce the stuff to ransom. Given that we aren't going to see any working demo tomorrow, I still maintain that it should be open sourced. I don't see the issue with that really - do you?
I know PJH has to cover the costs etc but that will be easy if a working demo can be created - money shouldn't be an issue at that point.

As for proving it couldn't work, many scientists have already done that - something to do with entropy but I am not an expert! That's not to say this isn't a new thing.....who knows, certainly not me.
You could also suggest that even PJH has proven it not to work - nobody knows otherwise, unless you have seen the Quenco demo over at Stanford in preparation for tomorrow!?

I am assuming it won't work and we will never see it (Quenco) - that's based on what I have read on this forum, the history of PJHs project, the familiar 'Steorn' pattern, the worldwide network of scientists who work with these materials every day not 'coming up with something' and also what I have read on the subject and the basic problems which make it next to impossible to achieve.

People who think that Quenco will work appear to be basing their opinion on hope (which is fine). I base my opinions on at least some facts and technical knowledge!

MBM

PS: It would be great if it works tomorrow - does anyone know what time PJH will break cover? Have any of his supporters had any contact?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mrsean2k on December 12, 2012, 02:05:01 AM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: wideyed_tutank on December 12, 2012, 03:35:49 AM
@vrstud


So you want to be the first one out with a quenco powered vibrator? :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on December 12, 2012, 04:32:49 AM
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

I agree Bruce this sarkeizen is just a cowardly troll here under another name so he can take cheap shots at someone or a troll who has an agenda of some sort that would be negatively influenced if Quenco succeeds and is under some delusion that his post will hinder Quenco. 

   This sometimes reminds me of the stock market when I was day-trading.   You'd see all the short sellers talking complete trash and BS about a company in the company's forum while all to people holding stock or buying would be posting rumors of over the top profits and fantastic futures.  It was pitifully obvious everyone was trying to influence the stock and very obvious which side each poster was on.   They all had their agenda. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 12, 2012, 09:59:57 AM
@vrstud


So you want to be the first one out with a quenco powered vibrator? :)

Great plan! The  industry is one of the biggest there is :)
Not sure the ladies would like to sink the ambient to -200 deg C though! :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on December 12, 2012, 10:18:44 AM

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 12, 2012, 10:26:59 AM
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?

Who is Mary?
I think neither increased or decreased. He announced to this audience (you included) some awesome claims, 100% proven technology available immediately etc. To then ignore the audience is somewhat odd - think of him on the 'stage' with the audience sat down.....PJH, the speaker, states the awesome claims and says 'I will be back after the break to demonstrate to the world how this will change it' etc....the break starts, he goes to get a coffee.........and doesnt come back, the audience are sat there wondering what has happened, people look at their watches, people get more agitated, people cry hoax etc.
You do see what I mean right?

Everyone works hard (everyone I employ or know at least) but spending a few minutes to tell your 'audience', be it your friends, colleagues, family whats going on is valuable. Even if the news is bad, its good to talk (as BT said!).

The old saying 'no news is good news' doesnt hold true all the time.....in fact, almost none of the time.

Seriously though, a few minutes for an update to his audience would do him a lot of favours.

You do have to excuse me for getting a bit annoyed but I feel like I have been duped, hoodwinked into believing in something which is panning out in the same way as all other OU technologies. Snakeoil.

Nothing is pointing to a successful conclusion of the Quenco project just yet although I genuinely do hope the scientists and engineers missed something and its real (on a useful level as quoted by PJH - 10kW etc).
 
Quote
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?

As above, I dont think its increased or decreased the chance. It takes a few minutes to post an update - posting a Quenco demo would change the mood considerably!
The 'big reveal' is scheduled for today - lets see. Shame the Quenco site is down - there is now no public way of rescheduling the date!

mbm
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 12, 2012, 10:34:35 AM
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.

I think you are missing the point.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mrsean2k on December 12, 2012, 01:16:45 PM
"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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 12, 2012, 02:15:20 PM
"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.

Apologies, I dont follow what the "who is Mary" and "sock puppet" comments mean - can you explain?

Quote
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.

Explanation marks, smilies, I love 'em. Its about the only way you can put a forum post into some kind of context (humorous, angry etc). The standard assumption here is that everythings said by a skeptic is said in an angry or sarcastic tone, TBH most of it is the latter.

With regards to the issues, I am not sure that I am aware of the issues and I do have a brain. Can you clarify what the issues are (if you have a brain?).....wait for it........!
I also think that if some of the issues were shared on here we have enough collective intelligence to at least have some valid input to help solve them. Since its a closed ship we have no visibility.
PJH Has a priority date on the patent so he has some level of protection.

Quote
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.

Sharing the issues and having our collective intelligence help him work through them. Thats what seems to happen on this forum, people have a go at a project and run into trouble and ask for help...which is generally given. Thats kind of the point of the forum. Its not a 'look at this, its 100% proven and will change the world, but I cannot prove it or share info' forum....or is it?

He is having issues, he has at least said that  -(and you have made clear that anyone with a brain is aware of the issues) how about sharing the issues and getting some help, where is the problem?

If his claims are true then 'changing the world' could, potentially, only be held back by these issues.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: vrstud on December 12, 2012, 04:38:34 PM
That would be the bedroom tinkering :P  Besides, wouldn't be too popular, lets make you cold and "hot" at the same time.


@vrstud


So you want to be the first one out with a quenco powered vibrator? :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 12, 2012, 07:04:45 PM
Your "first" post?  Not likely!  You simply grab another user name, so that you can talk trash. 
You are simply and completely wrong.
Quote
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.

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.
Quote from: someone who I'm too lazy to bother looking up their name to make this more complete
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.

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on December 12, 2012, 08:26:52 PM
So unfortunaely Quentron is not delivering on the "promised delayed date" after December 1st was promised as the "real drop-dead date."

I am not surprised at all.  Lumen and a few others around here can eat crow.  Lumen even had the gall to upload a picture of "crow pie" about three weeks ago to "shame" the skeptics and I posted back that you shouldn't count your chickens before they were hatched.

This whole thing has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese and I could write up a long posting detailing them but I won't bother.

All I can do is ask the fanboys to do some soul searching.  Why can't you ask some polite technical questions of these dubious free energy promoters or politely ask for some evidence of prototypes, preliminary test data, whatever?  Instead all that you do is cheer and otherwise you are mute in anticipation.  If any of you had the desire and will to ask Philip some basic reasonable questions the cracks in the foundation would have started to show right away.

MileHigh
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: steeltpu on December 12, 2012, 09:37:01 PM
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????  U show up here on Dec. 7th for first time and your first post is trying to shred somebodies reputation? 

 U aren't fooling anyone here.  u are nothing but an f***ing troll with bad intentions and much of what you said is outright lies.   

i'd expect a new technology like this to take 5 to 10 years to be in production.   right now we are being asked to wait until feb. 2013 for a product release and 6 more months for it to be in full production.   i think that is amazing if it happens that fast.   details are up on quentron.com with good explanations.   i fully expected it wouldn't happen before end of this year. 

 he says all technical details have been resolved.  the only thing it requires now is patience.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 12, 2012, 10:21:24 PM
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.

It would be different if you had a working part made through the same process then scaling up would, in theory be possible to determine how long something would take.  However even *then* companies often miss the mark.   So you build your schedules with the necessary slack time.  Philip, even if he had a working part of this kind, which he probably doesn't doesn't  do this.  He is a *bad* manager.
Quote
U show up here on Dec. 7th
11th.  Not 7th.
Quote
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?
Quote
much of what you said is outright lies.
I notice that you forgot to mention exactly *what* you think is a lie.
Quote
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.
Quote
right now we are being asked to wait until feb. 2013
Which is exactly what he said last year, at just about this time.
Quote
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.

Now if I'm wrong there (or Philip is telling less than the truth) and the quencos do require significant finishing.  Then any manager that wasn't horrible would have booked that equipment in advance rather than miss an INTERNATIONAL PRODUCT LAUNCH date.  If you didn't then you know right well you probably wouldn't have made the date.    If you know that you won't hit a product launch and you keep telling people you will - you are a *bad* manager.  Today (or yesterday if he was running on ACT) was the *PRODUCT LAUNCH* that means there is PRODUCT that is usable in some sense of the term. 

Evidence suggests that Philip either is a terrible manager or he simply does not have functioning Quencos.
Quote
i fully expected it wouldn't happen before end of this year. 
So did I but Philip said otherwise.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on December 13, 2012, 02:18:17 AM
Oh well we will have to wait for February to come around, lets hope all the teething troubles will be ironed out by then.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 13, 2012, 02:26:20 AM
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?

Also consider that Philip says: "For those waiting for this to become a reality all I can say is that I have no doubt we will succeed in February"

No doubt...a complete absence of uncertainty.  If he doesn't make it in Feb will you at least admit he knows zero about managing delivery schedules?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on December 13, 2012, 03:49:26 AM
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.  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.  Also, Phillip has been a member of this forum far longer than yourself.  If you want to be discouraged over the delays, that is your perogative.  But remember, he owes nothing to any of us, and only posts out of respect for some members in this forum.

As many years as some of us here have been working on projects, another couple of months is hardly a big deal at all.

My personal opinion is that we are living in a fantasy land if we think for a moment that the government will not intervene if quanco does work as advertised.  No way in a zillion years, they would risk the economy and millions of oil jobs.  They will cite "national security" and it too will go away with all of the others.

Cheers,
 
Bruce
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 13, 2012, 04:24:43 AM
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.
Quote
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.

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.
Quote
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?
Quote
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.
Quote
only posts out of respect for some members in this forum.
Please restrict yourself to stating things you can actually know.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on December 13, 2012, 05:12:05 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on December 13, 2012, 05:46:50 AM
Hi All,


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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 13, 2012, 06:06:31 AM
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?".
Quote
Considering that you have built nothing,
Again please confine yourself to statements you can know.
Quote
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
Again 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.

Quote
My last post to you should have been enough
The 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.

Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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. 

Or are only cheerleaders allowed here?  You should put that in a sticky somewhere.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 13, 2012, 06:26:45 AM
Apparently some nasty troll here
I figure someone like Philip would be old enough to use the term "troll" in it's classical sense.
Quote
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? 

Quote
Why some people want Quenco to be wrong or fools gold I cannot fathom
I can't fathom all the strawmen in your post.  What people want is orthogonal to what is being discussed.
Quote
, 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.
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
but once these are done we can make a batch of quenco just like any production line.
heard it before.
Quote
my job is done in February
heard it before.
Quote
Now this really is my last post for this year
heard it before.
Quote
but I will come back once Quenco is finished so I can gloat at the noted silence of some.
Definitely heard that before too.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on December 13, 2012, 06:27:07 AM
I don't buy what you are saying Philip.  All that I see from you is talk.  There are too many things missing in your narrative, such that you have no substance.

About a month or so ago there were some links related to your project, most of them were about a year old.  I read what you had to say by following those links.  You were unable to properly articulate the technical aspects about the electrical output from your device.  That's something that you should be able to do with ease.  You have never discussed the thermal issues in detail and how that relates to the electrical output.  You have never cited a test experiment with prototype device.  In fact, you have never even mentioned a prototype.  When you talk about "1000 amperes from one square centimeter" it's hard to take you seriously because there is no practical way to make a 1000-ampere hookup to a device that is one square centimeter in size.

You appear to be a one-man fabless semiconductor guy, and you seem to be almost nonchalant about claiming geometries that are smaller than the latest Intel and AMD semiconductor technology that's used in the latest generation of processing chips.  It costs hundreds of millions or perhaps billions of dollars to do a new generation of semiconductor technology at a reduced geometry, and yet we are supposed to believe that you are working with semiconductor layers that are about 15 hydrogen atoms thick.  That's smaller than what Intel and AMD are working with right now.

I don't know what your game is but your Internet footprint is almost nil.  If you were real and had what you say you have there would have to be an online presence for your alleged organization with multiple names popping up when you do some searching.

Nothing is going to happen in February, mark my words.  In fact nothing is ever going to happen.  That's my honest and unbiased appraisal of the current state of affairs.  For those of you that will get upset, if there was a sense of substance from Philip and there was an Internet footprint indicating a legitimate organization I would be saying something different.  Do you get it?  I am basing my opinion on the facts at hand, and not because I want to see Philip fail.

Why this "free energy dance" is going on is unknown.  You would have to really know what is going on in Philip's head.

MileHigh
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on December 13, 2012, 11:01:10 AM
Hi All,


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
Hi Philip,
 
I think we should all choose to ignore the attention seeking trolls from this point.  Thank you again for the update and taking the time to write.  Best of luck to you and we will see you in February.
 
Merry Christmas!   :)
 
Bruce
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on December 13, 2012, 11:42:04 AM
Thanks for the info Phil. Hope you have a great Christmas home in Australia.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on December 13, 2012, 03:12:22 PM
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.

Friend Philip,

It's great, have good news you're okay.

Trolls are very good in the process of show to us the true human nature, we are all selfish, enjoy when others fail just for the pleasure of feeling superior, we are not sensitive to what happens to others, alone we care that we are well and we have the reason.

If we have the pleasure of receiving updates on your progress with Quenco, this does not satisfy us, we always want more and more. These trolls never have enough, if you give them information reports will ask then, if you give one then be asked 2 if you give 2 them will be asked 3 then 3, and so on to infinity, look at the rich, no amount of money is enough for them, always want more and more money without limits. So are we all, our selfishness is not satisfied with anything and always wants more.

Let the trolls alone, they only will change with proper education.

In general human nature constantly make us think on how to have more, how to own more. When we must to develop us, be taught to do the opposite, we must continually think as give more, as we are more sensitive towards other human beings and the planet.

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.

Quenco is a great catalyst of this solution, with money of the foundation, the foundation of Philip, we can change the education system, implementing comprehensive education worldwide, and from there work on solving the other problems of society, food, work, home, etc.. But it all starts with the shift to the right kind of education.

Philip, great work !,You've done a lot in a very short time, has come a long way, and all your efforts will be rewarded with success.

Take a vacation, relax, enjoy share with your family, sure when you return in January to continue working with Quenco, God will arise in your mind great ideas and solutions to soon have a multi-layer Quenco.

Happy holidays to all, 


The Eternal God guide us !
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: truesearch on December 13, 2012, 03:31:38 PM
Philip:


Keep up the good work and good luck to you!


And a very merry Christmas and happy new year to you and your family.


truesearch
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 13, 2012, 04:16:52 PM
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.

Likewise with Philip.  You simply have to look at the objective data concerning his ability to deliver and make some kinds of rational dispassionate decisions.  Is he likely to have a good grasp of what it takes to deliver a product on a specified date.  If yes, then at what point do you stop believing that?  How many failures will it take to affect your judgement.  If the answer is "no amount of failures" then you're not really making a rational decision.   Likewise and I hesitate to bring this up here where emotions run your lives but there would, rationally speaking be a point at which a number of failures would tell us that Philip is simply not the man for the job.  Not that he might not have value elsewhere but he simply shouldn't be leading this kind of project.  Especially if there are $100's of millions of dollars invested from other companies (or potential revenue).  Philip has on many occasions told us that his lack of disclosure it to protect the interests of other companies.  Do you really think that such interests don't extend to some level of executive control?  Like I said, all of this sounds like someone who hasn't managed more than a lemonade stand.
Quote from: Elisha, but probably not the prophet
Let the trolls alone, they only will change with proper education.
More namecalling and ad hominem.
Quote
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".

Quote from: trim12
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.

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? 

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on December 13, 2012, 05:40:12 PM
The problem is that many people here are late in arriving. Philip had posted many different updates on his web page describing the Quenco process and theory and at times probably gave more information into it's operation than he wanted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on December 13, 2012, 06:03:16 PM
Lumen:

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

You have got to be kidding, that's just a nonsensical and gratuitous ad hominem attack.  You and others are uncomfortable with Philips's failure to deliver yet again, so in frustration you attack others that don't share your opinion.  Other contributors to this thread have done the same thing as you.

Shame on all of you that have done this, we are here to discuss Philip and the Quentron free energy proposition.  Try to stick to the subject at hand.

MileHigh
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on December 13, 2012, 06:33:48 PM
More namecalling and ad hominem.Exactly where does Philp do any of this.

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

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

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?

All the life is a learning process, keep one eye open !,  Philip is learning a lot about nano deposition process, then in some time Philip will have a Working Quenco, if this is not in February don't worry, he dont is asking money from us.

If you observe the life with care, we the humans dont have any control about what happen. if you think you have control over your life and your actions, you have not yet seen life carefully. It's just our pride and littleness that makes us think that we are in control of something, the truth is that nothing is under our control. Clearly with this, I'm not saying that we should not plan, you have to plan and prepare everything in advance, but be sure that our plans will be met as design is just the lack of seeing what happens in real life.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on December 13, 2012, 07:27:51 PM
The problem is that many people here are late in arriving. Philip had posted many different updates on his web page describing the Quenco process and theory and at times probably gave more information into it's operation than he wanted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The facts are that most skeptics are just jealous people that have accomplished nothing in their own life and have little self esteem.
Hi Lumen,
 
A very well written post, indeed.  From what I understand of the Quenco, and posted a few pages back, you have indeed hit the proverbial nail on the head.  As I also mentioned, the thinner the material, the greater the probability for tunneling.  The idea is really quit ingenious.  Use that effect to your advantage, and create a material so thin as to make the tunneling a certainty.  I can see, as usually is the case, the practical application , can be more daunting than the working theory, even when that theory is true.  Then stack them and you are good to go.  I too think that this may turn out to be the real deal, indeed.  But not something that can be built in our home lab.... lol.
 
Cheers,
 
Bruce
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Qwert on December 13, 2012, 07:54:58 PM
You are late to the party, Philip give us a Theory, drawings, explains, and also very important a simple test,  I do the simple test with the vacuum tube and by myself experiment I can tell you, THIS WORK ! 

THIS does not work, because THIS does not exist! You made test on vacuum tube, not on THIS. Since its operating principle seems very simple, a possible technology seems not so simple: it is a matter of producing (and handling) a plate, or rather a flake which thickness is measured in fractions of Ångström (single atoms).
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on December 13, 2012, 08:07:21 PM
@sarkeizen

I am with you!


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

There is a lot of scientific papers trying to scientifically prove that thermionic emission could in fact violate the 2nd law. Fine with that, since this is peer-review science. The point that Phil seems not to understand is that the current flow cannot be higher than the thermionic emission of the emitter. And this is very very low (less that 10^-7 A/cm^2). Tunnelling can't multiply anything, it can't create charge or energy from nothing.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 13, 2012, 10:13:11 PM
The problem is that many people here are late in arriving. Philip had posted many different updates on his web page
You could at least have the decency to read my post before misinterpreting it like Bruce.  This is not a problem for me I've read his web page for a little more than a year.  I've read just about every post he's made here and a fair number at moletrap.  I've read a number of the postings of his that have made it onto other forua on the internet.  My prior statements stand, primarily Philip has made arguments by authority which should really carry no weight with anyone.
Quote
If you are one of those late people then it simply sucks to be you and you should just get over it and do some research.
Perhaps before vieing for "most arrogant person on earth" (which put you up against some pretty stiff competition like Philip) you should think a bit more.
Quote
There are many devices that exhibit similar properties to the operation of a Quenco chip if you look into it.

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

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

In fact, the current limit in CPU is about 65nm and requires reduced voltages so the electrons don't tunnel through.
So you can see that tunneling is a real effect that occurs at a voltage dependent on the barrier thickness.
Wow, however particle tunneling isn't really the issue.  It's that this somehow lets you violate 2LOT (probably algorithmic information theory too) you are essentially arguing that carrots can produce carrot juice and carrot juice lets you run faster than the speed of light.  When questioned you assert how carrots are real things.

Quote
I for one am very convinced that Quenco is a real device that Philip will get into production in a fast time frame.
Still dodging the rather big Elephant? What happens when he fails in Feb.  Do you believe that the probability of him delivering in June is the same? or does it go down?  What about the probability of him delivering in December when June fails?  At what point do you adjust your characterization of his abilities?
Quote
Just think if Edison was trying to make a light bulb, how some would be calling him a fraud and if it worked he should have it by now and just a flash from his device was not useful and on and on and on, just like they do now with other peoples ventures.
Argument by false analogy.  Edison was not attempting to break the second law of thermodynamics.   While I don't know what schedules he announced or didn't announce if it made as poor judgements as Philip then he was just as bad a manager as Philip appears to be.

Quote
The facts are that most skeptics are just jealous people that have accomplished nothing in their own life and have little self esteem.
More interesting is how poor people are at math.  For example in order for this dissonance preserving statement to be true.  You would have to have a randomized representative sample of skeptics as well as their lifes work.  Considering it seems unlikely that you would possess any of that.  Perhaps you might constrain yourself to something you actually know.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 13, 2012, 10:38:25 PM
Sorry is not just you, everyone have a troll inside also me ! but must be jailed inside.
I am not trolling.  Stop namecalling and making ad hominem attacks.
Quote
You are late to the party, Philip give us a Theory, drawings, explains,
Perhaps your incredible arrogance could take a rest?  I have been reading his posts for quite some time.  Including his rotating thermionic generator and Fu's paper which predates Philip's earliest posting.  His drawings of Quenco are pretty much power point slides, nothing at all useful.  A theory isn't education in a useful sense of the term, I could make up a dozen theories.  Heck you could programmatically generate mathematical theorems. 
Quote
and also very important a simple test,  I do the simple test with the vacuum tube and by myself experiment I can tell you, THIS WORK !   This is real education, try by yourself not just to believe in words in the air from someone.
I hear some Mormons get a burning in their bosom and consider that a successful test.   Often it's repeatable too (or so they say).
As far as I can see the output is small enough and the isolation (in my environment) would be poor enough that it would be easy to end up reading something else.

Quote
All the life is a learning process, keep one eye open !
And you have apparently shut both your eyes to his repeated failures.  Believe whatever you want about Quenco.   There is no reason to believe that Philip is any good at delivering on his promises.
Quote
if this is not in February don't worry
If not in June 2013 do you worry then?  If not in December 2013 do you worry then?  How many failures would it take to convince you that Philip is the wrong man to be managing this endeavor?
Quote
the truth is that nothing is under our control.
Ever estimate how many times a day you are entirely wrong?  For example I type about 70 wpm.  In the course of a day I decide to type various words probably about a thousand (error adjusted). However in order to do that I have to *CONTROL* my fingers.  That's like five thousand times you are wrong....every day.

Certainly there are things we do not expect.   However there are whole branches of math that let you deal with uncertainty.   The point is that uncertainty can be bounded.   This is what good managers do with schedules.    If you couldn't do this medicine would not have progressed beyond the dark ages.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 13, 2012, 10:41:13 PM
Hi Lumen,
 
A very well written post, indeed.  From what I understand of the Quenco, and posted a few pages back, you have indeed hit the proverbial nail on the head.  As I also mentioned, the thinner the material, the greater the probability for tunneling.  The idea is really quit ingenious.  Use that effect to your advantage, and create a material so thin as to make the tunneling a certainty.  I can see, as usually is the case, the practical application , can be more daunting than the working theory, even when that theory is true.  Then stack them and you are good to go.  I too think that this may turn out to be the real deal, indeed.  But not something that can be built in our home lab.... lol.
Perhaps you can respond to Lumen without giving him a headfirst colonoscopy?  If you really think whether some particles under some conditions can tunnel is the big question here then you understand Philips work less than I do.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 13, 2012, 10:50:59 PM
@sarkeizen

I am with you!


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

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

One of my interests of 2LOT violations is that it probably has an effect on information theory.   One thing that makes me skeptical of someone citing a quantum effect which violate 2LOT is that I suspect this also implies that a quantum machine can violate BBBV.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 14, 2012, 12:01:52 AM
@sarkeizen

I am with you!


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the interests of pre-empting the usual responders:

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

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

Thanks

MBM

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: wideyed_tutank on December 14, 2012, 06:07:17 AM
So in the end it turns out to be a pissing contest between naturally abundant BARIUM & the not so abundant YTTRIUM.  :P


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 ???









Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on December 14, 2012, 11:14:36 AM
***
*** Is the statement about the emitter current being a max of 100nA true?
***

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

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

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

@sarkeizen:

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

I am collecting all the references, please be patient.

H0llander
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 14, 2012, 03:15:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on December 14, 2012, 05:25:01 PM

Hi All,


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


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

http://quentron.com/theory.html


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



Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 14, 2012, 05:41:46 PM
note when one says 100nA/cm2 max the other does not disagree, this is a classic example of bad intent, a genuine sceptic would question the postings of other sceptics when they make such a claim, but a troll will deliberately allow other trolls to say stupid things providing they are of a negative bias.
Wow, Phil two posts past the "last post of the year" you must really be riled up but how can that be when you have real operating quencos?  You could doubt that I have a left hand, you could say that having a left hand would violate the law of hands but you know what.  Actually having a left hand tends to makes me laugh at such statements rather than get riled (of course you'll probably now claim that you weren't but hey).  So it makes me wonder if what you have is significantly more tenuous than my left hand.

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

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

Exactly HOW are we NOT being skeptical about Hollander's claims?   Maybe you'll save face by REALLY making this your last post this year.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Qwert on December 14, 2012, 06:01:37 PM
If I make a silly error let me know, I do not proof read and self editing is notorious for not seeing typo's.
:o You make ONLY silly errors.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 14, 2012, 06:53:00 PM
http://quentron.com/theory.html
Can anyone explain to me why any of this is actually useful to the discussion.

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

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

This is exactly what I mean when I say that Phil has given us nothing other than an argument from authority.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mrsean2k on December 14, 2012, 07:35:47 PM
Save your outrage for something you're entitled to feel 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.

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?

And even if it leads to nothing, there's utility in dissecting what the error is, and where the slip in reasoning occurs specifically, rather than just short-circuiting the discussion. Paradoxes of all kinds that lead to false conclusions are discussed in this way and lead to better understanding.

So keep at it Phil.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 14, 2012, 08:33:00 PM
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.
Quote
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?
Being forced or not forced to read it is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that this is supposed to be the "Theory of Quenco" not "The Theory of Electron Tunneling".  Dozens of words about tunneling which explain nothing.  Why bother calculating the number of electrons tunneled?  The value is utterly useless to actually explaining how the quenco does what it does.
Quote
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. 
Quote
And even if it leads to nothing, there's utility in dissecting what the error is, and where the slip in reasoning occurs specifically
You 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.
Quote
So keep at it Phil.
...or post something useful.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mrsean2k on December 15, 2012, 12:22:57 AM
Yawn and shrug. HTH.

Anyway Phil, I'd be interested to know what behaviour you predicted for the valve-in-an-oven experiment, and what steps you took specifically to eliminate alternative explanations. Also, has anyone else that might be considered independent and suitably qualified had a crack at it and what were the results?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 15, 2012, 01:19:03 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on December 15, 2012, 02:38:02 AM
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.

You are correct! Except for the work function of the metals used already cause the voltage imbalance.

At the same temperature one metal will lose more electrons and the only thing lost crossing the barrier is the heat or kinetic energy of the electron.

Think of a solar cell with the photon imparting energy to the electrons and pushing them through the barrier.

Now think of the new solar cells that work in the infrared region.

Now think of the even lower passive infrared detectors working at room temperature.

With two different work function metals, one will always be more emissive than the other at the same temperature so equally imparted kinetic energy will cause more electrons to tunnel a barrier from the more emissive surface until the voltage is raised to a potential where the electrons can tunnel back. This is the point of equilibrium, but at this point there is a potential difference between the two metals that will result in current flow depending on the number of accumulated electrons.

Of course I could be wrong, since this is only proven by existing Physics and not the new Physics of shitzforbrains.

This is not you Madebymonkeys, I believe you may actually be trying to find real value in this concept unlike some others.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 15, 2012, 03:27:47 AM
Of course I could be wrong, since this is only proven by existing Physics and not the new Physics of shitzforbrains.

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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on December 15, 2012, 04:51:45 PM
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?

I have seen that! I have ask myself that same question. Is this possible and has anyone else done anything similar?

If you do some research on the net you will be surprised.

The process would be 100% efficient, as in time all available heat will eventually be converted to electron flow.
This is because two electrons with kinetic energy less than needed to tunnel the barrier, can interact and impart their combined energy into one electron now with enough energy to tunnel the barrier, but the process slows as the kinetic energy goes down.
If you use a thinner barrier, then the output voltage is also lower and the overall energy gained is less.
The kinetic energy (heat) provides for a logarithmic output dependent on the difference in the two metals work function and the barrier thickness.

I think Philip has a difficult road ahead so giving him more time is no problem for me. (I have nothing invested anyway)
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!


 


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Qwert on December 15, 2012, 05:16:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 15, 2012, 07:25:10 PM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 15, 2012, 07:28:40 PM
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?

It may help to have Quenco expressed in pure mathematical form - something that would be easily exchangeable between mathematicians for verification and, potentially, helping PJH?
I know this ain't going to come from PJH so if anyone else has the skills then feel free :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 16, 2012, 04:30:12 AM
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.

So what you're saying is that given something poorly defined in some respect (Quenco) which might or might not work and something else (X) which you think is somewhat better defined but also might or might not work.  We can then infer something about Quenco from X?

That really is hard to follow, assuming Quenco works there are four separate potential cases for each technology you examine (Not working & Similar, Working, & Not-similar, Not working and Not-Similar and Working and Similar) only one of which would be helpful.   Applying even priors I'm not so sure having a 25% of getting useful information is really that likely a good way to get a good result.

Speaking of begging the question...
Quote from: Phil
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.

Quote from: Phil
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.

As an aside, there's a good reason for the humongous amount of fluff in Phil's theory page.  Most of the papers on potential 2LOT violations and their rectification are done as thought experiments because you can work on an extremely simplified form and in an environment with an unparalleled amount of control.  In real life you have nowhere near that level of control.  Which means you have a much higher probability of error.   If Phil were to try to create a hypothetical model on the level of Feynman's ratchet he would end up having to add "magic fairy dust" that is there would have to be some mechanism where the outputs are known and the operation can not be explained.

This is why he has to keep harping on some experiment he did.   It's the fairy dust.   If there was a way to explain it's operation on a fundamental level it would be far easier to explain than regurgitating all the stuff he did on his theory page.

The logic behind his challenge to replicate his experiment, to coin a phrase "sucks donkey balls".  It's a classic example of how various kinds of stupid gets into the collective consciousness.  Thousands of people could do it at various levels of competency.  Even if most got Phils answer...what would that say?  Nothing.  Running a thousand experiments under different conditions doesn't give you a highly accurate answer.   However this is one of those counter-intuitive things about science.  So instead of people shrugging their shoulders people think there's something to this.  Perhaps one person out of a thousand might do the experiment right in which case they get a negative result.  What do people do then? They assume that the negative case is the outlier.


Quote
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"?
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on December 16, 2012, 06:43:25 PM

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.

So you say you have giving up on Hot Fusion? What!, After only 50 years of trial.
That is totally absurd!, it is proven to work, we just need another 10 years or about that to get it to work and then only another 10 years to figure out how to contain it and then some good place to place the radioactive by-products afterwards.
Ok, you can keep beliving in that and I will wait a few more months to see if Philip and his team provide some results on something that possibly defies only a single statement by Lord Kelvin (who has been wrong before) that some work can be done from the flow of heat but not from an isothermal environment. So claimed in the 1800's before the advent of todays nano technology.

I do understand what you are saying, I have given up on Hot Fusion in that it's just an obsolete technology that is more than likely never to become fruitful in the next 50 years even with 100's of millions more soaked into it.

Everyone has a limit from their understanding of how something could or should work, which provides a cutoff of when they believe something should be operating.

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.

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.

 I would actually perfer Philip informing us of his progress and also of the cause of failures if known. This is not a demand of Philip since I have no right to demand anything of him.
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lancaIV on December 16, 2012, 08:26:32 PM
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

 

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 16, 2012, 09:18:34 PM
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

Unlikely, given the posts so far. Although it is 100% proven?

I think a temp gradient IS required - cant see any other way it can work.
If a temp gradient is indeed required (which I believe) then there isn't anything new here.

Just speculation based on what I have heard from others (not on the forum).
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on December 17, 2012, 03:47:28 PM
Hope some of you will find these urls interesting.

Maxwell's demon goes quantum, can do work, write and erase data.


http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/07/maxwells-demon-goes-quantum-can-do-work-write-and-erase-data/  (http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/07/maxwells-demon-goes-quantum-can-do-work-write-and-erase-data/)

Maxwell's Pressure Demon and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

 http://www.execonn.com/maxwell/maxwells_demon.html  (http://www.execonn.com/maxwell/maxwells_demon.html)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 17, 2012, 03:56:15 PM
So you say you have giving up on Hot Fusion?
So let's first define some terms:

Hot fusion is a somewhat vague collection of technologies.
Tokamak is a particular containment technology designed for a hot fusion reaction.
ITER is a project to investigate a number of technologies concerning hot fusion inside a Toamak reactor.  Not the least of which is implementing a 500MW reactor.
Osamu Motojima is the Director General of the ITER project.

Each one of those is logically independent in one direction.  I can give up on Osamu Motojima as capable of delivering ITER without giving up on ITER as being deliverable.  I can give up on ITER as being deliverable without giving up on Tokamak as being a feasible technology to implement and of course I can give up on Tokamak as a feasible design without giving up on hot fusion in general.

Quenco is constently missing it's self-set deadlines, including it's self-set international product launch.  Now that has to be caused by something.  If your mind can't possibly believe that it's 2LOT, "electrostatic Maxwell's Demon" or Quenco.   Then the problem must be Philip.  Put another way, if still think it's reasonable that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has been broken, that electrostatics can create a functional Maxwell's Demon and that Quenco implements all these...then you have to believe that Philip sucks as a manager.
Speaking of the so-called product launch.  This was supposed to be an event that people could attend.  What happened to those people?  Did nobody want to see the incredible Quenco? If they did Philip either informed them well ahead of time in which case he's been fibbing to everyone else or they had to cancel their flights to his little shindig.

Quote
it is proven to work
Again the term "work" means different things depending on which one of those terms you are using.

Hot fusion works in the sense that the theory is sound and experimentally validated.
Tokamak works if it can be scaled to useful power generation levels.
ITER works when it delivers the goals set by them.  Including creating a test reactor by 2020.
Osamu Motojima "works" when he delivers the things he set out to do.
Quote
we just need another 10 years or about that to get it to work

What ITER will produce, if they keep to their schedule is a 500MW plant in 8 years sitting in the south of france.  It will give us an idea of how much it costs to replicate this technology.  That doesn't mean that funding should continue.  Hot fusion is an immensely expensive project which was planned not to be realized until 2020.   In 2020 we may decide that it is simply not worth it.
Quote
I will wait a few more months to see if Philip and his team provide some results on something

...and you keep avoiding and avoiding and avoiding the question.  Which is "When he fails in February then what?" is your confidence for him to deliver in June 2013 just as strong as it is now that he will deliver in Feb 2013?  Please answer the question instead of droning on about irrelevant things.
Quote
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)
Quote
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".

Good.  So far the only person who's saying that is Philip J. Hardcastle....and that folks is what we call Q.E.D.
Quote
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 17, 2012, 04:02:46 PM
Hope some of you will find these urls interesting.

Maxwell's demon goes quantum, can do work, write and erase data.

but not violate 2LOT...you are only making the world dumber.

So where's the answer to my question there anyway...what happens to your confidence in Philip when he fails in February?  If nothing.  what happens when he fails in June 2013?  Again if nothing what about 2020?  If nothing then don't you see an obvious source of incredible stupidity in yourself by never allowing information to affect your assertions?

Is this weird "circle the wagons" mentality just the way everyone behaves here?  If this thread were a room...it would be all elephant!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mrsean2k on December 17, 2012, 05:01:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on December 17, 2012, 06:14:53 PM

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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mrsean2k on December 17, 2012, 06:42:34 PM
If your preacher believes it is the truth, he doesn't lie. I don't have to accept that what he tells me is true (and don't) but that alone wouldn't alter my opinion of how honest he is.


PJH claims to have performed an experiment several times that supports his contention. He also believes that he's been sufficiently careful in his experiment to rule out other explanations for measurements he claims to get. 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.


As far as his proposed experiment is concerned, it's fine to claim "there must be a mistake, here are some of the possibilities" Would it be a lie to say you were absolutely certain it was one of your suggestions without performing the experiment?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 17, 2012, 06:51:50 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: doublehelix on December 17, 2012, 07:23:59 PM
As a member of the so called peanut gallery my observation is that there is an elephant in the room, it is the ego of sarkeizen. He posts here with the deliberate intent of offending, we have all seen this sort of person before who craves attention in order to feel important, they do not reveal any truths except that they are a very sick and counter productive person. In ordinary life we call them bullies or psychopaths.

forums should be about respectful dialogue
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on December 17, 2012, 07:39:29 PM
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.
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 17, 2012, 08:23:47 PM
Quote from: Philip
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.

Yet again, Phillip begs the question.  Running out of paper is talking about storage.  If you decide something you must be deciding it FROM some piece of information.   Running out of "paper" or however you're storing something means that you eventually have to reuse your storage.

I also think he's kind of lying a bit.  Last post he seemed to have no knowledge at all of how the arguments from information theory work.  Now these have somehow informed his belief from day one.







Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 17, 2012, 08:29:19 PM
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) ;-)

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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on December 17, 2012, 08:57:38 PM
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.

LOL - good one Bruce.    I'm not sure why this forum has such a low level of moderation - less than any where I've been in 25 + years on the Internet.   We can hope it will change but I don't expect it to happen any time soon. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Liberty on December 17, 2012, 09:31:47 PM
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.
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.
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mrsean2k on December 17, 2012, 09:49:47 PM
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?


The squirming is in your imagination, and the insistence that a probability should be assigned in this way is your fetish.

As it stands your question is impossible to answer (for me) because you aren't defining it with enough precision.

Prediction of what event?

a) Prediction of PJH manufacturing the nanofilm he claims he needs to demonstrate that his theory is correct, to his specification ?

b) Prediction that the nanonfilm will demonstrate the effect

c) Prediction that the target will change from the nanofilm to something else?

d) Prediction that he'll accept he was mistaken if it doesn't work?

e) Something else?


I wouldn't assign a numeric probability to any of them. I suppose I could put an arbitrary description against them. Or the direction I'd revise one or more of them in depending on what happens when Feb 2013 rolls round,. Or what direction they've already travelled in, or if more information or change of plan comes to light before that.


But why would I bother? What would it achieve?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 17, 2012, 10:10:59 PM
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.
Quote
I wouldn't assign a numeric probability to any of them.
This is more of an aside but...

Clearly you, at this time consider the probability that Philip will deliver in Feb to be > 0.  So P(Feb2003) > 0.  Just in case you didn't know zero is a number.  Not only that but in other news there are quite a few numbers.  So even if you want to go on with the drama of "therz cant bee a numb3r to eXpress my <whatever>" there is and you know it (that is you know that it must exist).  The only question is how precisely such a value can be determined.
Quote
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?

Anyway your silliness aside. In case you weren't reading the point wasn't, as I said above to quantify to some particular degree of precision.  The point was that you must have an expectation for February which means, by your prior statements you should be able to talk about what will happen to your confidence should Phillip fail in February.   Anytime you want to answer the question asked days ago let me know. :)  After all your reluctance can't possibly you squirming.  Right?
Quote
As it stands your question is impossible to answer (for me) because you aren't defining it with enough precision.
Probably not true.
Quote
Prediction of what event?
The probability that Philips next date will be met with the outcomes he specifies.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mrsean2k on December 17, 2012, 10:30:11 PM
So much typing for so little effect.

I'm familiar with numbers and the notion of probability. 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" ? I consider P > 0 to be sufficient for any decision I choose to make on this subject.

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.

But in this case, I don't need to, so I haven't.

I am still unable to answer your question, because you aren't being precise enough. It depends.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 17, 2012, 11:53:26 PM
I'm familiar with numbers and the notion of probability.
Not enough to know that there exists a probability to express your confidence.
Quote
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.
Quote
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?
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mrsean2k on December 18, 2012, 12:14:59 AM
"Not enough to know that there exists a [/size]probability[/size] to express your confidence."

Enough to know that the sort of false precision you seem to seek is pointless from any angle.

"Philip producing what he said he would produce by the end of February is an event."

Explain exactly how you interpret that remark. Be precise.

"So only events where you have some control over the outcome are worth quantifying?."

Lazy strawman. I don't claim that as an exhaustive lists of things I consider worth spending effort to quantify.

"Philip has claimed that some set of outcomes will be realized by February 2013"

By my interpretation, there are several outcomes, some that I've listed, each of which I'd consider differently.

If there's some big decision you need to make, based on the outcome yourself, you should ask. 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 18, 2012, 01:22:43 AM
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.

It may surprise someone with your level of knowledge of probability - sufficient to say that such analysis is pointless. There are whole textbooks written by pretty respected mathematicians on analyzing decisions and making decisions using personal probability estimates but perhaps you simply know better than those people.
Quote
Explain exactly how you interpret that remark. Be precise.
Please specify where you need further precision.  Be precise for a change.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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).
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mrsean2k on December 18, 2012, 01:42:48 AM
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)

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).

The effort to be any more precise would be wasted effort for me in this set of circumstances. Your desire for me to give you an answer doesn't change that.

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.

Something for you to think about in future.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 18, 2012, 02:15:07 AM
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).

But I guess you like to blame others.
Quote
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.

Also you claimed that quantification was pointless.  Now that argument has been killed all you have left is a "I don't wanna".  It's worth noting that nobody said you had to.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.

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 straightforward 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 already done in some respect.   Can't be done by anyone here when we change one assumption. Similarly 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.
Quote
Something for you to think about in future.
That's you're silly and condescending?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on December 18, 2012, 02:28:48 AM
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.

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!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: ramset on December 18, 2012, 02:59:55 AM
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.
 
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 18, 2012, 03:25:40 AM
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.

@ramset - I just don't watch that much TV.  On average someone in the US watches about 2.5 hours a day.   That's more than enough time to spank poor arguments from people who should know better (and criticize the occasional cheerleader like Bruce).   I think I put in a full day of work today - despite having a cold, commuted home, read to my kids and tucked them in.   Worked a bit on the NYT saturday crossword too.

Quote from: Bruce_TPU
NOW THAT WAS...
Ever get the feeling you're trying way too hard?

Quote from: tagor
yes I am getting sick and tired of the badgering !
You and me both sister.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on December 18, 2012, 03:40:03 AM
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.

Now THAT was funny! 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: tagor on December 18, 2012, 07:25:41 AM
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.

yes I am getting sick and tired of the badgering !
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on December 18, 2012, 07:15:28 PM
I type fast! So I can buy more crack! So I can type fast....To buy more crack.....To type faster...........
Anyone know this guy?
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 18, 2012, 08:41:36 PM
I type fast! So I can buy more crack! So I can type fast....To buy more crack.....To type faster...........
Anyone know this guy?
...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.

Quote from: What would Bruce_TPU say?
Now THAT was funny!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 19, 2012, 09:30:54 PM
...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.

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?!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: doublehelix on December 22, 2012, 06:57:52 AM
OK, You take the side of YES Quenco is True, and I will debate that it is FALSE
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 on December 22, 2012, 07:07:12 AM
don't make me go there.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 22, 2012, 07:09:21 AM
OK, You take the side of YES Quenco is True, and I will debate that it is FALSE

Actually, I wanted false...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: doublehelix on December 22, 2012, 07:24:30 AM
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.

Go ahead and tell us in detail where he is wrong and what you know to be the correct position (without reference to the historical position on the matter). I see he has posted quite a bit on his theory page that you must be very keen to correct, though why you are waiting for a debate on the matter to do that is a mystery to me.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: doublehelix on December 22, 2012, 07:30:19 AM
If you make sense I will reply in the contrary position, if I can.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 22, 2012, 08:59:03 AM
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.

Not at all, all I have been asking for since I joined is some answers to some basic questions and some proof that his claims are true. Asking questions and asking for proof appears to get people on the defensive (you included by the looks of it).....and gets the questions asker branded a troll!

I haven't made the claims that Quenco works 100%, is totally proven, will change the world etc - PJH has. It's down to him to provide some proof of his claims if he wants to retain credibility.

This is scheduled to happen in Feb 2013 (this time) - PJH has managed my expectations such that I don't believe this will happen.

Can you explain, unambiguously, why it will or won't work?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: doublehelix on December 22, 2012, 09:06:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 22, 2012, 09:17:43 AM
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 23, 2012, 06:31:40 AM
...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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: doublehelix on December 23, 2012, 07:26:57 PM
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.

MBM I thought you wanted to debate the issue, but you say you cannot so I understand why you might want the forum to do so.

If there are ppl here that wish to debate I am all for that but it is pointless to simply take a position in science based upon expectations, science is science and let's stick to facts if we are going to have a meaningful debate.

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Mr Logic on December 24, 2012, 12:42:37 AM
I only joined here to add to this post initially, and am certainly not one of those trolls or shills some of you imagine are around here. In fact they all ask perfectly reasonable questions, the ones essential in any claim and scientific enquiry, and without them how would we learn anything?

I have been investigating this sort of thing and related areas for over 20 years, and for the last 11 been helping out Nick Pope with his ufo work, and have plenty of references if people want to question it. The only advice I can offer Paul is with his marketing. Until now the patterns have been identical, and unfortunately I see no difference here having read half the material (there are only so many hours in a day) enough to catch on the main scenario from every one before. The rules for marketing free energy and similar is totally different from normal, as if you want to make a better car or washing machine you can easily know so years in advance, and roll out a programme of marketing as soon as you wish.

But with free energy, to be frank, it does not exist. The reason this forum exists is because until aliens and free energy did exist we would just discuss them, once they did the discussions would be unnecessary. The golden rule for free energy producers is to wait till the stuff us finished and then make their announcements. That's it. Tough on the patience and enthusiasm for them as we all like to share our activities when special, and also assume like other products you won't sell without publicity. But this is different, as what are they selling? Not a variation on an old product, or a new product using old methods, but something which doesn't exist. Of course if it does exist they would show us. Have they? No. Will they? How do I know. But as long as anyone spends a single sentence announcing a product in this area which they (not us, we only know what they tell us) know is not ready the cause will get nowhere.

So it's now February. If Mr Hardcastle delivers we all know (as we wouldn't be here if we didn't) it will be a precedent. Steorn do now have a heater on sale so maybe that is a missed opportunity to investigate, but the dribble of information they have provided and flowing from it isn't sufficient to know a thing, but as for the real thing for certain this is not just equivalent to winning James Randi's million dollar prize but finding the holy grail. But I've (or you've) never seen a single one of these dates materialise. Of course we haven't, or we wouldn't be here. Will this break the mould? We only have the past record to go on, so my question would be what's difference about this date compared to previous? There are still a couple of months to go, and if delayed further then I for one will have lost interest.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 24, 2012, 02:36:15 AM
but it is pointless to simply take a position in science based upon expectations
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on December 24, 2012, 03:07:21 AM
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,
 
Leave my name out of your trolling!  Don't be a hater, simply because you don't build anything, and use up good oxygen, finding the strength to type your drivel.
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on December 24, 2012, 12:28:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on December 24, 2012, 05:56:19 PM
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.   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 24, 2012, 06:22:18 PM
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.

'Unprofessional' is the word you are looking for re the site.
With 'world changing, 100% proven tech worth billions it would have been worth spending a few k on a website....and a lawyer!

Licensing details costing millions talked about on the front page of a website - or anywhere on a website is fishy!
Hey, if something is worth that much at least spend a few quid on the website!

My 2c, feel free to ignore.....or if you are a troll then go and tell me I am wrong, a hater, whatever.

Oh, and talk to some guys who know physics - they will let you know how this one will pan out.

Merry christmas!

Mbm
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on December 24, 2012, 06:48:35 PM
E2matrix:

Quote
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.

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:

Quote
We had hoped to have completed the work by November but we had an unexpected labour issue that cost us over a month.

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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 24, 2012, 07:03:17 PM
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?
Quote
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)
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 24, 2012, 07:05:01 PM
This space for rent.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Here2njoy on December 24, 2012, 07:05:26 PM
I post very seldom, but here are my thoughts.
Everyplace that shares knowledge is good, even from the naysayers. It rededicates those among us that want a better world.
The collective consciousness will have a far better chance at creating more AH-AH moments than having to remember as just one person with no prior knowledge.
Free energy may not exist, but creating efficiencies has always existed and there is no denying that.
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.
At some point in the future just like air is today, heat from the sun, or the abundance of water on this planet, things can appear as virtually free. (many things come to mind for me)
Groups like this will aid in the advancement of not free energy but darn cheap energy that appears almost free years from now. 
So Carry ON! Lets talk again in 10 years or maybe tomorrow... who knows?

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 24, 2012, 07:15:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Here2njoy on December 24, 2012, 09:33:14 PM
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.....

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 24, 2012, 10:20:25 PM
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.....

'Question nothing' and just 'believe' seems to be the order of the day on this thread (sensible questions spell 'troll' to many people here!)!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 24, 2012, 10:24:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on December 25, 2012, 06:52:30 AM
You actually need a unit for things to grow at some pace.  Most of the things you're talking about are unitless.

Ok, here is a unit.
10 years ago it took 6 months to sequence the human DNA, Now it can be done in 20 Minutes and printed on a DVD for you!
20 years ago, it took 6 years to do the same and took many CD's to save the data.

As they say in the computer world, the problem is actually a "ID 10T error". Why would you think a unit is required to show progress?
Progress  can be shown by any change in results, even if the results are worse, because even with worse results, you know your heading in the wrong direction. A batter can hit the ball further and further with each pitch and even though no one is measuring the distance and comparing, progress can be seen.

You arguments are weak and fall into the "ID 10T error" class.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 25, 2012, 07:15:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on December 25, 2012, 05:34:59 PM
Bitch please.  We are talking about an exponentially increasing rate with respect to time, not just any improvement.

Like I said "ID 10T error".

You just need to move the letters closer together!

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on December 25, 2012, 08:07:14 PM
'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. 
 
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Mr Logic on December 25, 2012, 08:24:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on December 26, 2012, 01:43:18 AM
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.

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!
 
At this time Philip is attempting to make the device a solid state version that may or may not work, or may not be more efficient.
The basis for this trial has been tested many ways and shown to work. So if any device actually can extract work from an isothermal environment, then what is the question?
There can be no skeptics except for lazy skeptics that only complain about other peoples work.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Qwert on December 26, 2012, 03:01:50 AM
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?
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on December 26, 2012, 05:54:24 AM
Lumen:

Quote
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!

If you are referring to putting a TV tube into a 500-degree blazing toaster-oven as a true isothermal test it's a joke.  I noticed that nobody on this thread backed me up to state that the test was invalid.  Not to mention that it produced something like 10^-12 watts.

When people are in a thread they would be better off having the courage and conviction to express their true opinions.  Clearly that test was not valid and I suspect that many people would agree with me.  If you showed that test setup to a college professor he would roll his eyes and silently scream to himself.  Another interesting point to note is that even Philip had nothing critical to say about the ridiculous toaster-oven test.

So all that we have right now are Phillip's claims that one of his devices will be able to power an iPad.  He posted stating that that would be how he would demo the alleged technology to the world.  Anybody remember that?  We are not supposed to be talking about a few layers coming out of the semiconductor fab producing a few microwatts or nanowatts as a proof-of-concept device - Philip was talking about powering an iPad with a real device that was supposed to be launched in Q4 2012.

So the snooze button has been pushed again and we will wait.

MileHigh
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on December 26, 2012, 09:28:00 AM
But this device does not exist yet. Right?
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.
It could sound something like that depending on when you think this became a serious effort to build it.
To me, the serious effort started when Philip started work at Stanford University.
If you want to do your own testing, 35,000 USD will get you an ALD chamber off ebay.
2LOT has already been compromised, so finding better methods will just be a matter of time.
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 26, 2012, 07:05:27 PM
Like I said "ID 10T error".

You just need to move the letters closer together!
Can you give me an example of a physical quantity exponentially increasing with respect to time without a unit?
Quote from: Bruce_TPU
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.

Anyone who takes the time to look can see each of my posts was a response to a specific statement by someone about something I had said. If you don't get how I was elucidating then perhaps you didn't understand the post to begin with.
Quote from: lumen
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.

Philip claims he made something and recorded some effect.  So did you.  Technically these aren't Quenco's even Philip doesn't call them that.  There is no fabricated Quenco.  Not to mention that Philip and you are simply assuming that what ever you think you observed is due to some effect that you are hoping can be replicated with these devices.  The idea that some might consider such evidence as rather weak.  Isn't exactly irrational.

Engineers and Stock Analysts really need to read Karl Popper (my apologies in advance to the sane subset of Engineers I've met)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 26, 2012, 07:30:06 PM
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!!).
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on December 26, 2012, 08:06:22 PM
To be fair, most of my posts have been questions and statements of fact (read them!!).
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.
 
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 have said to you and to the real troll, that to continue to verbally cut PH to shreds with innuendos, mismanagment accusations, etc., ad nausua is a WASTE OF TIME and prolongs STRIFE.  It will not hurry nor change the schedule, it adds nothing to the scientific discussion, provides no experiments, no builds, but simply PROLONGS STRIFE.  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)
 
And the REAL TRoll can say the same thing 27 times in 27 different ways, with his snide, arrogant remarks, but he STILL says the same thing.  And yes SARKEIZEN, I am talking about you.
 
Cheers,
 
Bruce
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 26, 2012, 08:32:44 PM
I wasn't writing concerning you, but if your conscience is bothering you, or if the shoe fits, hey, who am I to disagree.
 
I have NO belief system about quenco, other than I believe that PH believes in his project.
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"
Quote
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.
Quote
  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. 
Quote
etc., ad nausua is a WASTE OF TIME
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.  It's like watching a doomsday cult without the funny ending.
Quote
It will not hurry nor change the schedule, it adds nothing to the scientific discussion
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.
Quote
And I have had enough of it.

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.
Quote
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.
Quote
And the REAL TRoll can say the same thing 27 times in 27 different ways, with his snide, arrogant remarks
What same thing am I saying?  You keep leaving that out.
Quote
And yes SARKEIZEN, I am talking about you.
When aren't you?  Take a nap, relax.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on December 26, 2012, 08:55:13 PM
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!
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 26, 2012, 09:38:56 PM
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?

Similarly when you express your ire toward people because you like to pretend that they haven't built things while you defend someone else but again we're not allowed to point out the gaping hole in that reasoning?

Again don't you think you're kind of being arbitrary?  After all it's not like you're not repeating yourself....the main difference is that you're being vapid.  Uh congradulations?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on December 26, 2012, 09:53:56 PM
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!

They seem to be increasing exponentially in time, without unit.



Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 26, 2012, 09:56:06 PM
Sure I can, how about your posts in this channel!
Isn't "posts per day" a unit?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on December 26, 2012, 11:10:53 PM
Isn't "posts per day" a unit?

Yes, posts per day could be a unit, so could words per day, so could bytes per day, bytes per hour, or minute or any way to quantize the data.

But then, I did not need any unit to see the result.

You only need a unit to prove to someone else a result! But that's not what you said.
Though, you could say I just believe that's the result if I don't produce any data to prove it, but the fact is, the data is real only you believe it is not!



Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on December 26, 2012, 11:16:53 PM
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

LOL - That's funny that you are so anal you have to send me a PM to make sure I see your response.   So yeah I'm a cheerleader for positive change.   I'll agree to that much.   But if you were paying attention you would see I've called out a number of things as FAKE on your other hangout OUR.   Even one brought up by the PhysicsProf recently.   You think I'm not a technical person?   That's good because that means my system works for those that aren't real sharp.   I'd prefer people not think I'm too smart or technical.  I'll probably have to delete this post because it may reveal the opposite.   Some examples:  deleted now that MileHigh has seen it. 
   We won't go into my IQ because I don't want to have to live up to that level all the time.  I'm too lazy for that and I actually prefer to keep things casual on forums.   I'd rather people thought I was just average as it saves me a lot of trouble.   But do I spend time asking technical questions?   Sometimes but I am not an expert in the field that Phil is working in but I do consider myself an expert (with training) in judging people's character.   I believe Phil is honest and knowledgeable enough to know whether he has a valid concept that can turn into a product.   The fact the he even moved to the U.S. temporarily to move forward with this speaks volumes.   
      For those familiar with your reputation I need not say more.   For those who aren't let me ask if you have ever supported any concept that would lead to overunity or free energy (meaning much more affordable energy) for the masses?   Have you ever thought any concept could lead to this?   Last question deleted as apparently MH thinks it's some sort of prejudice thing.  Not sure how he got that from my question but I don't have any intention of seriously upsetting anyone nor am I even remotely prejudiced.   I can only conclude from his reaction that he may be a minority.   I welcome all race, religions, genders, nationalities  etc. here.  Zero prejudice and I don't want to see any prejudice here.   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on December 26, 2012, 11:49:31 PM
E2matrix:

I sent you a PM because I thought that you were going to ignore the posting and/or you may have not seen it because it is delayed.  Several times in the past I recall making a technical point to correct something you said and you did not acknowledge it.  You made posting with a mocking tone to me a while back about battery voltages climbing under load and I responded with a technical reply and you said nothing.

Good on you for calling things fake, I simply can't remember ever reading that from you.

"aren't real sharp" - so you want to take a jab at me, I can take it.  To take a jab back at you, I have seen you endorse and support completely nonsensical foolishness, which sometimes gets posted around here.  Like you have totally glazed eyes and are simply a blank.

"I do consider myself an expert (with training) in judging people's character.   I believe Phil is honest and knowledgeable enough to know whether he has a valid concept that can turn into a product."

I beg to disagree and I have already stated my contrary opinion on Phil and his proposition.  Does that make me a evil person that is on the payroll of Big Government or Big Industry?  The answer is no, and I resent it being stated so casually by you as if it were some sort of a given.  When a Joe Blow makes a little spinning pulse motor nobody is watching.  The reason I state that is because it's simply preposterous to think that people are watching the pulse motor builders ready to threaten and even assault them.  You are just falling hook, line, and sinker for an old cliche that is itself often played by people with fake free energy propositions.

I like debating the merits of some free energy propositions.  If I ever saw something that I thought was legitimate I would embrace it.  I am not going to answer that last question, it smacks of the worst of the worst that we want to avoid around here.  There are no "Colored" and "White" bathrooms and lunch counters any more in the US.  Have you noticed?  Do you want me to push you to the back of the bus under threat of violence if you refuse?  You had better do some soul searching about your last question.

Simply stop trying to insinuate that people that want to debate free energy propositions are evil and likely on the payroll of evil Big Government or evil corporations.  Show some critical thinking skills and show balance and wisdom in your judgement of character.

MileHigh
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 26, 2012, 11:55:42 PM
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:
Quote from: lumen
Sure I can, how about your posts in this channel!
See...posts.   
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 27, 2012, 12:15:59 AM

I got a PM too!
Accusing me of having a 'mocking tone' in response to some battery voltage rising under load.......not sure what that's all about?!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 27, 2012, 12:36:28 AM
I got a PM too!
Accusing me of having a 'mocking tone' in response to some battery voltage rising under load.......not sure what that's all about?!
I think the messages were for e2matrix and we were added to the recipients because we be the skeptics.

I mean true I thought e2matrix's crazy post is about as sharp as a sack of hammers but is that really so strange?   Where I come from we don't really self-identify with terms like "skeptic".  We just think believing any old shit is stupid.

But  here? I look at luten and wonder why, given his low threshold for "proof" and wonder why he (or she) doesn't convert to six different religions over the course of breakfast. Cheerleader Bruce, who heads up the "You need my permission to be critical about anything" brigade.  Do people like this really exist? or is this just some forum to troll sane folks? --- It would at least explain the UFO and alternative medicine forums attached here :)

I mean I get that much of the behavior can be explained as dissonance avoiding but it's pretty freaking extreme if you ask me.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on December 27, 2012, 12:50:36 AM
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.

Oh yea..... but I meant posts per hour....... ah...so....your calculations are still crap as is your line of thinking because that is not even the point.
Posts are unit less if not framed so no matter how you twist the facts your still wrong!

yup let me move the letters closer for you! ID10T...... yea I can see the data now!
You cannot win this game because it's not what I say, It's what I don't say. Now.....Lets play again.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on December 27, 2012, 01:09:20 AM
@ MileHigh
PLEASE STOP sending me PM's to "make sure that I saw your response".  Frankly, I'm not interested
 
@ Sarcophagus zian
Get a grip on your lip, ma'm.  Your repetitive dissonance is trolling my mind. PLEASE!
 
@ Phillip
Keep on trucking!!  You must be onto something for so much grey noise to be on the thread.  LOL  Impatient peeps 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 your once decent and semi scientific thread."
 
Cheers,
Bruce
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Mr Logic on December 27, 2012, 01:19:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 27, 2012, 01:51:31 AM
Posts are unit less
You don't think a "post" is a unit? 
Quote
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".
Quote from: Bruce_TPC
Keep on trucking!!

Apparently Philip's Christmas travels took him as far away as 1930.
Quote
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?

By the same token you have generated so much "grey noise" about what I've said that by YOUR OWN LOGIC you must think my criticisms are valid
Quote
LOL  Impatient peeps
What 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.
Quote
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 your
So you have vivid fantasies about Philip being right but you have absolutely no beliefs about Quenco....right.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on December 27, 2012, 02:08:05 AM
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.

I think I like your viewpoint.   ;)      Although I suspect the recent spate of agitations may be more due to the upcoming full Moon in 2 days.   Ask any cop in a big city if they don't have a lot more domestic trouble calls during full Moon time. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Mr Logic on December 27, 2012, 03:12:52 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on December 27, 2012, 05:45:47 AM
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.

I'm not sure how much of this msg. thread you have read but I believe quite the opposite.   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?   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.   All this at his own expense and I don't personally see anything from the Inventor  that sounds like anything bad at all.  It sounds simply like any project being done the first time takes longer than you expect.   I once worked on a job where I built a certain phase of a yacht.   It took me 7 or 8 hours to complete each one the first week.  I was then told I had to be able to do it in 2.5 hours.  I was told if I could do it quicker than that I could sit on my butt if I wanted to.  Within a few weeks I had gotten it down to where I could do it in 45 minutes sometimes.  My point is simply that the inventor is doing many things for the first time.   If he had done this 20 times before and he said he would be ready by December 1st and he missed that by more than a few days I would question what's going on.  But he has never nor has anyone else EVER done what he is now doing.   So I don't know why people are surprised when he misses a few dates on this.  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.   Maybe it's the fear of the doomsday predictions or the possibility of the economy falling apart that is driving people to be short on patience.  I had hoped to have a 'free energy' system in place by now.   I do have some in place with solar but not enough to fully run things the way I'd like.   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 especially if they are not asking for money nor asking people here to dish out their own money to build replications.   Phil (the inventor) is not asking for either of those things but rather came here seeking some ideas along the lines of how best to get this out to the public.   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.   I may have a slightly different take on Milehigh now after some PM's.   If I am to believe what he states he simply likes to debate free energy.   But I'm not fully on the side of believing that 100% yet.   I'm just a couple steps to the right of where I was on MH's motives here.   

    Having had a fairly good start understanding the scientific method I used to be initially a skeptic.   But along the way 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'.  While there is some good reason for having an obstacle course in place I do believe the ego's of scientists involved, the investments by those in power and the resistance to change anything that would upset any large economic systems has made a nearly impossible course for most to navigate.   So now I do all I can to encourage anything that has not been solidly proven false and from the aspect of sociology and/or psychology I believe it is a much better choice for those who actually want to have free energy (or much more affordable energy) to encourage inventors than to badger, stifle, demean, harass and relentlessly go after them like some rabid pitbull.   If a technology or invention is not valid it will become obvious at some point all on it's own without all the other nonsense. 

    I just had another theory spring to mind as to why some are so impatient here to have proof.   There may be some here with money to invest who are looking to get a jump on a new technology even if it is not with the inventor himself they might be looking at putting money into a company that buys a license for quenco.  Let's say Intel buys a license but AMD does not.   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?     ;)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on December 27, 2012, 06:17:00 AM
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.
Just like a ring in your nose.

Why don't you tell us what you know about 2LOT and Philip's experimental proof. That would be more on subject.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on December 27, 2012, 06:36:01 AM
Milehigh,  In the past it seemed that people who either got banned here or banned at energeticforum, or they had issues with either of those 2 major energy discussion forums would go to overunityresearch forum.  That's just the way it seemed to me anyway and I've seen plenty of grumbling over there about OU and EF forums so it tends to reinforce my feeling.  So I somewhat looked at that as the place for misfits to go although it's far from really being that but I'd say it leans that way - sorry poynt99 - just my opinion.   I just went over there now to check in as I was going to send you my last 3 posts I made there since every one of them was a post by me calling this or that concept a fake and exposing what I had found in some cases.  In one case I was the first one on this forum to find proof of the fakery and posted it here since the same topic had come up here.   I called out 3 different devices as being fake and explained how I thought they were faked or in the one case showed proof.  I went to overunityresearch.com to send you a PM of those 3 posts so you could see I'm not just a cheerleader of everything that comes along as you said. 
    But I can't find you in the member list there anymore.  I thought that was sort of your main forum you debated on.   Did you get banned from there?    Well if you did you can still probably read my messages I was going to PM you there.  Look for #34 and #44 in the "The TPU principle rediscovered!" thread and #10 in the "Claimed self-running AC motor-generator + load (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1571.msg26514#msg26514)" thread.   It's obvious I don't always play the 'cheerleader'.   Okay I'm done for a while.   Your turn   ;D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 27, 2012, 07:05:02 AM
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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 27, 2012, 08:02:04 AM
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.

What is far,far,far,far,far more likely is, if Philip is in Stanford he's just renting facilities.  Which just about anyone can do if they have the money.

If you look at the various gaps in deadlines across various forums there seems to be a pretty consistent two-three month gap for each major change (followed by a few small shifts).  If Philip is doing anything at all, he's probably trying to get something fabricated.   Designs get sent out and then non-functional parts get shipped back.  So what I'd guess we're seeing here, if anything is someone who keeps thinking they've found "the problem" with their design.  Then enters some kind of fabrication process.  Then receives the non-functional part and tries again.  Each time feeling more and more confident that the current design is correct.
Quote
  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.
Quote
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.

Quote
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?

I managed a job once where someone constantly shifted their deadline.  Something that they costed out at four months took over a year - and it still wasn't done.  So I fired them brought on someone else.  Finished out in two months.

Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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?
Quote
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. 
Quote
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.
Quote
So now I do all I can to encourage anything that has not been solidly proven false
So what is required for "solidly proven false"?
Quote
  I just had another theory spring to mind as to why some are so impatient
Except you're theory about impatience is wrong.
Quote
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?

As stated before I don't like labels like "skeptic" I just think that either you have to believe everything or not everything.  If the latter you need a set of criteria that is acted on consistently. Most people here who aren't seriously questioning Philip appear to have ridiculous gaps in this respect.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on December 27, 2012, 03:39:19 PM
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, only about people and your hopes of their failure.
Like your recent post, nothing new, nothing intellectual, nothing mathematical, nothing scientific, only garbage talk of other people.

So when you say you "prefer to talk about evidence" then why don't you?

It's obvious you know nothing about Philips work and stick only to calling him a failure. Why don't you post some of your data on the tests you ran showing us all where he is wrong?

Lets see if you can write a post about Philip's work, and not about Philip.

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?

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.

So we all feel bad for you, but stamping your feet and pointing at others won't make anything better.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 28, 2012, 04:10:49 AM
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.
Quote
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. :)

Quote
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".
Quote
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).
Quote
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.

That said  I have made a couple of observations about Philips assertions about his alleged invention, as well as corrected some of his wrong ideas (which he then added to his Quenco page) and have pointed out how Philip doesn't even make a useful argument against at least one of my points.

However sadly those statements weren't nearly as popular with people here as my talk about Philip's timelines.  Perhaps those arguments allowed people here to more easily gibber about "patience" or demand that Philip is owed by people who post here some adherence to some code of behavior yet he himself owes people here nothing.   I don't know but if your question is why are most of my posts about Philip and not about some of the other things I've discussed...well to see the answer to that you only need look in a mirror.
Quote
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?!
Quote
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. 
Quote
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.

I've stated my points coolly and logically both about Philip's schedule misses and how that kind of impugns his character and his ability to manage.  I've also brought up a couple of technical issues.  If you didn't want to comment that's cool.  If you do now (perhaps because you've been so thoroughly trounced with the "a post isnt' a unit" nonsense) then you could just go back and read.  Then you can feign recollection and use it as a springboard or a disparaging comment: i.e. "Oh *that* I wouldn't really call that a *scientific* comment".   Perhaps that will salve your ego enough so you can stop acting like an infant.  e.g. Trying to find a poor way to interpret one of my posts so you can use some moldy computer joke.   You know, things like that. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on December 28, 2012, 05:17:36 AM
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)
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 28, 2012, 10:15:06 AM
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)

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!!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 28, 2012, 04:00:23 PM
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're being honest here, which is doubtful then what could I possibly discuss with someone who doesn't know how to read?  At least in this scenario, perhaps if we met in person I could use visual aids or perhaps put on a little play or puppet show to explain things to you.  Otherwise we are at an impasse.

Quote
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)
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.

Considering that all three of your rules are an example of someone talking about People - doesn't that mean you're - by your own logic a bottom feeder?  Just sayin'
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on December 28, 2012, 07:25:03 PM
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on December 28, 2012, 08:07:49 PM
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!!

Yes, you are correct! It always takes two to argue.

With that I must say : Sarkeizen my friend, all we do is argue anymore, So I'm leaving you.
 :)

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 28, 2012, 08:08:47 PM
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

There is no conversation, just trolls having a pop at people with sensible questions!
This whole rant appears to have been started by people asking technical questions and discussing doubt about the whole quenco principle!

How about rewinding a few posts and trying to answer some questions?!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on December 28, 2012, 08:27:12 PM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 28, 2012, 08:41:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 28, 2012, 09:16:43 PM
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.

FYI, I am not disputing tunneling electrons (everyone knows that's proven) - I am just unsure how this can be a practical source of power. I am considering a system rather than quenco in isolation (which tbh could do whatever it likes but if its not possible to consume usable power from it then it falls flat on its ars#).
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on December 28, 2012, 10:31:09 PM
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.


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 29, 2012, 12:04:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on December 29, 2012, 01:32:34 AM
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.

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.
 
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 29, 2012, 04:13:56 AM
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.
Quote
I have stopped reading his posts.  Let's all just move the conversation without him, and if he responds, ignore said response. 

Because this forum is about communication and the sharing of ideas unless you don't like them then Bruce suggests you stick your fingers in your ears.   Yes, I can see how that's the grown-up thing to do.  Thanks Bruce.
Yes, you are correct! It always takes two to argue.

With that I must say : Sarkeizen my friend, all we do is argue anymore, So I'm leaving you.
 :)
Arguing is actually pretty useful.  If you could only be less vapid about it.

OK, Rewind:
Do you see any real questions in there?
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. :)

...oh and just a point of clarity.  You're essentially saying that an engineer of 30 years can't see anything even in that reference that might challenge Quenco?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 29, 2012, 09:49:38 PM

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.

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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 30, 2012, 02:02:17 AM
So here's a question for you MBM.  Let me know what you think...

Suppose you can prove that no algorithm can exist to accomplish something.  Do you believe that means that no device can be built to accomplish the same goal?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: doublehelix on December 30, 2012, 02:40:01 AM
So here's a question for you MBM.  Let me know what you think...

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

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 30, 2012, 02:58:49 AM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on December 30, 2012, 04:02:39 AM
Thanks for that, useful.
With the thermal modelling did you discover a point which determines the max power available given an infinitely large heatsink?
Also, is there any dissipation in the barrier and what's the temp difference on either side of the barrier - assuming the quoted figures for the 1cm^3?

Many thanks
Mbm

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

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

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

So there are methods to increase the thermal input even with the limited conduction of copper heat sinks.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: forcefield on December 30, 2012, 07:02:08 AM
Suppose you can prove that no algorithm can exist to accomplish something.  Do you believe that means that no device can be built to accomplish the same goal?

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

I don't believe that Quenco can work.  But, if it does, I think the ramifications are deeper than we can begin to imagine.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 30, 2012, 11:17:17 AM
So here's a question for you MBM.  Let me know what you think...

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

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

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

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

Still interesting to talk about but ultimately very unlikely to appear in store soon!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 31, 2012, 02:44:22 AM
Quote from: forcefield
It might be possible to build a device that can't be modeled with an algorithm.  But, I think it might also be verging on Creation itself.
Firstly I'll just clarify something.  What I'm talking about is a device that does something for which it can be proved that no algorithm exists.  For example you can prove that there is no deterministic general algorithm to determine if a computer program will end.

If you think you could build such a device then you should ask yourself: "What would such a device be constructed with?" if it is made from parts whose action is well understood (that is the input states and corresponding output states are known) within the context of the device.  Then you could write an algorithm which would emulate how these components operate in the device.  (e.g. If your device used two gears fixed to two different axels, you could replace the gears with a human following an algorithm.  The human would observe one axle turning and turn the other axle in the same proportion that the gears would have).  So the only kinds of components you can't emulate are ones where the action is not well understood within the context of the device.  In other words given an expected input, you don't necessarily know the outputs.  Such a machine could not produce a deterministic result.
Quote from: MadeByMonkeys
If you could be sure of there being no algo possible then it would stand to reason that the device would not be possible.

I ain't sure if there is an algo for Quenco as a 'system' but there are algo's for bits of it.
So the next question to ask yourself is:  "Is Quenco a Maxwell's Demon machine?" - that is "Does it reduce entropy in an isothermal environment?"
Quote from: MadeByMonkeys
kind of like time travel and other weird stuff are proven on paper but there is no way to practically implement it.
Like a Tippler Cylinder?  IMHO things like that are more like saying "If you could break physical law in one respect, you can break it in another".
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 31, 2012, 09:42:25 AM
Firstly I'll just clarify something.  What I'm talking about is a device that does something for which it can be proved that no algorithm exists.  For example you can prove that there is no deterministic general algorithm to determine if a computer program will end.

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

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

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

Better ask an expert (I have and it's not going to work - I should ask them to summarise in a few paragraphs because!) :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on December 31, 2012, 10:11:48 AM
Only a few hours of 2012 left here in Australia.


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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

 www.quentron.com (http://www.quentron.com)

Back to why I logged on

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL


Phil H
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: ramset on December 31, 2012, 10:43:02 AM
Phillip
What an amazing time to be alive on planet earth,A true Benchmark moment.
I am glad your perspective has shifted to "enjoy"!
Have a wonderful new year.
 
Chet
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on December 31, 2012, 10:46:53 AM
Only a few hours of 2012 left here in Australia.


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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

 www.quentron.com (http://www.quentron.com)

Back to why I logged on

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL


Phil H

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

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

Happy new year....shortly!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on December 31, 2012, 10:53:11 AM
Philip:

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

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

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

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

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

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

MileHigh
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on December 31, 2012, 10:57:32 AM
February seems to becoming an interesting month as quite a few things are showing their heads then. Here's another contender in the "environment heat to electricity" department:

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

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

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

Happy new year, and may it be the year free energy becomes widely spread.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on December 31, 2012, 02:23:36 PM
When Phil says experts have tested his Sebithenco device he means experts and not in a toaster either.

@Phil have a great time.

To the Forum have a happy healthy and exciting year.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on December 31, 2012, 05:39:20 PM
Thanks again for the update Phil.   Have a Happy and Success filled New Year! 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 31, 2012, 07:41:55 PM
As I have said, I don't believe it will be the power source of the future but I don't understand the QM's of it - my thoughts about its success are based on stuff I have heard on this forum and others. I do know a little about its practicalities as a system and getting any power out of it - that seems like a challenge.
Right, I was just trying to step you through another approach (It's interesting that now that I'm only writing questions lumen et al are pretty silent).  So again, do you think this qualifies as a Maxwell's Demon machine - does it (as described by Philip) reduce entropy in an isothermal environment (Philip appears to say "yes" to this as far as I can tell)

Quote from: Philip Hardcastle
Seems that the only debate going on here is to label my delivery date slippage as some form of scientific proof in the negative.
"scientific proof of the negative" - is that even English?   *sigh*  Whatever that is, if that's all you see then you are simply an idiot.  How do people become EE's (which you claim you are IIRC) and not take some pretty elementary mathematics?  Information governs probability.
Quote from: Philip Hardcastle
all that does is the reality that we have working sebithenco devices in many independent hands (so I know I did not fool myself), and that we will have commercial Quenco tiles for distribution in February
This seems both to be the same announcement philip made over a year ago.  Not to mention it seems something of a lie or at least a violation of SNF lab policy.  The Stanford labs only allow proof-of-concept development: "Commercial activities (ie production of devices for sale) are strictly prohibited;"
Quote from: Philip Hardcastle
I can report that I have been sent confirmation of the actual experiments run by professionals, this now, including a South American friend who was ignored,
Those who were around at the time, can also recall that there were a number of replications of Fleischmann and Pons.  Replication would help discover simple measurement errors it wouldn't discover something biasing the measurements - e.g. something not being properly controlled for.  The OPERA faster-than-light neutrino anomaly illustrates this pretty well.  The experiment was replicated at least once.  Sure Philip claims that people have been replicating this "bake the tube" experiment, presumably with their own equipment.  However we probably aren't looking at a faulty piece of equipment just something that's not being properly controlled for.
Quote
sceptics who are more interested in attacking me than doing  the experiment or debating the science
Ok a few sentences ago Philip seemed to imply that doing the experiment isn't meaningful unless done by an expert.  In which case why would he urge anyone to do it?  As for debating the science, I maintain that Philip has posted, either here or else where very little in the way of actual science nor has he done much more than an amateur job arguing it.  Even Lumen who repeatedly jerks Philip off on this forum (not much more vigorously than the other cheerleaders like Bruce do) recognized that Philip begs the question wrt how his device violates 2LOT.

Just as an aside.  People who say things like "fully supported my own results" tend to sound more like used car salesmen than people who actually do lab work.  At least the work I've seen.  The fact of the matter is test results are probabilistic, rarely is anything so perfectly controlled that you get exactly the same result.  What you shoot for is to have results fall within your error margin.  Even then that doesn't necessarily prove your hypothesis (or invalidate your null hypothesis).  It's simply statistical data that increases confidence.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on December 31, 2012, 08:06:51 PM
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

Hi Phil,
 
Thank you for dropping in with the kind wishes.  I for one am excited to see the coming success of your production.  Have a safe and blessed New Year!
 
And remember, you can please only some of the people, some of the time, and you will never be able to please all of the people, all of the time, no matter what is said, and in the future, shown.  Keep pressing on, following your dream.  That is the most admirable thing to me.   :)
 
Cheers,
 
Bruce
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 31, 2012, 08:53:02 PM
I for one am excited to see the coming success of your production.
...didn't you say you didn't have any beliefs about Quenco?   Man, I need to get in with your deity.  Mine has this whole intolerance of lying and stretching the truth.  Yours, seems way more chill about the whole deal.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on January 01, 2013, 02:31:22 AM
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.

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)

No, I don't think it does...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 01, 2013, 04:55:31 AM
No, I don't think it does...
Even if it works as described by Philip?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 01, 2013, 05:33:24 AM
February seems to becoming an interesting month as quite a few things are showing their heads then. Here's another contender in the "environment heat to electricity" department:

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.





Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 01, 2013, 03:31:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 01, 2013, 06:36:20 PM
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?
If I was, I would say that your remark is again about the person and not any concept or idea.
Additionally, my remark was about another device shown in the link and not the quenco.
So I really don't understand what you are talking about...... do you?
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 01, 2013, 07:57:10 PM
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. :)

Also in case an engineer of 30 years was not aware we have the technology to create forum software with the amazing facility to talk to people privately.  If you're interested in learning how to do this please let me know and I'll give you some lessons.

Quote
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.

True I was talking about people but so are you right now (and were for the vast majority of your responses to me).  So you'll have to refresh my memory is this only a bad thing when someone other than you does it?  If so, is there some "license to talk about people" that I need to acquire in order to be allowed to construct sentences where people are the direct, indirect  subject or object. 
Quote
Additionally, my remark was about another device shown in the link and not the quenco.
Yes, I never thought otherwise.
Quote
So I really don't understand what you are talking about
Perhaps 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.
Quote
...... 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 01, 2013, 08:18:37 PM
Bla..bla...bla..., I hear a noise! It sounds like a broken record.
I'll just close the door.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 01, 2013, 09:08:00 PM
Bla..bla...bla..., I hear a noise! It sounds like a broken record.
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. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on January 01, 2013, 09:57:19 PM
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. :)

What did I tell you about leaving my name out of your troll posts?//  Eh??  Are you deaf or just dumb? 
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
 
Darn freakin' Myans!  I guess that is what happens when you put your trust in a bunch of human sacrificing astronomers, eh?  ahahaha 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 02, 2013, 03:44:34 AM
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?
Quote
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".
Quote
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.
Quote
Your purpose has ONLY been to demean Philip
Again, 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.
Quote
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?
Quote
You don't like what he writes or stands for
So 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.

Can I ask you, on what basis can we criticize what Philip posts?  or as I originally surmised is this thread only for vapid cheerleaders like yourself?  Seriously, can you point out a post where you do something other than call someone a troll or say "Yay, Philip I love you"? 
Quote
PLEASE do us ALL a favor
Given 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?
Quote
Didn't the Myan prophecy come for you?  "December 21st all trolls and their trolling ways shall be ended!"  ahahahaha
 
Darn freakin' Myans!  I guess that is what happens when you put your trust in a bunch of human sacrificing astronomers, eh?  ahahaha
...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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on January 02, 2013, 05:13:26 AM
.  Because you're never as funny as you think you are.
No, you are right, sometimes FUNNIER then we think we are.
 
Lighten up sarkey!  Congratulations, you have reached the status of "Junior Member".  The first time I have ever seen that happen with 58 posts that combined, say absolutely nothing.  ahahaha
 
Now THAT is FUNNY!  (if it were not so sad!)   8) ;D :o :'(
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 02, 2013, 05:50:06 AM
No, you are right, sometimes FUNNIER then we think we are.
A lot of drunks think that too. :)
Quote
Lighten up sarkey!
From someone who doesn't allow his name to be used my posts...that's more than a little ironic.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on January 02, 2013, 07:15:19 AM
Hi All,


Whilst waiting for nano fabrication to be completed at Stanford in February, for the month of January only I am posting a $50K challenge to universities (it was before $25K). It goes without saying that I would not do this if I was not 100% sure of my experimental results.


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.


www.quentron.com/news.html (http://www.quentron.com/news.html)


Cynics and sceptics may say that I am just trying to sell a block of land :-)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 02, 2013, 07:49:43 AM
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.

Of course the problem with the whole experiment is wrongheaded and if you ever read this loudmouthed skeptic's posts you'd see why.

i) Asking lots of independent people to "prove it to themselves" is stupid, and promotes stupidity and only monumentally ignorant people would suggest it.  The reason should be glaringly obvious to even someone who hasn't taken much beyond highschool mathematics.  The assertion by skeptics is that the experiment is being done poorly (perhaps some are saying you are lying).  Meaning that the experiment is hard to do well.  Since the ability at performing an experiment amongst the general populace has a high degree of variability.  Lots of people doing the experiment only creates data that is poor in quality.

ii) The victory condition for skeptics is poorly defined.  What is proof in this context?  What if I was to show that power varied in a non-isothermal environment with respect to temperature differential?  What if the effect doesn't scale with temperature and devices as you claim.  i.e. I use 100 tubes in series and 1/100 the temperature and don't get a result?  Both of these would imply that 2LOT hasn't been broken but you could easily pretend that it doesn't "prove" anything.

Yeah, it's easy to win a bet when you stack the deck.  Oh but never mind all that...I'm sure Bruce_TPU has some fanboi encouragement for you Phil.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on January 02, 2013, 07:54:49 AM
Phil, let's have another look at your proposition:

Quote
when they are proved to be........ just loud mouthed rude skeptics.

The 'proof date' is February 2013.  You have about 60 days, good luck.

Quote
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

I am assuming that you read my comments about that ridiculous toaster-oven experiment and have changed your tune from endorsing it to now stating that it was not considered reliable in scientific terms.  That is not confidence inspiring at all.  If you were real you would have rejected Elisha's experiment right away without a second thought.  Why did you have to wait for me to state the obvious?

Why don't the other three replicators step forward and share their results?  You are stating that you are waiting for their permission.  I really don't see the need for all of the cloak and dagger secrecy for this very basic experiment.  Again, this is not confidence inspiring.

Let's talk about vacuum tubes.  Basically the first vacuum tube was a diode.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diode#Vacuum_tube_diodes

Quote
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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleming_valve

Quote
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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermionic_emission

Quote
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.

I will comment more in the next posting.

MileHigh
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on January 02, 2013, 08:14:27 AM
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.


Sarkeizen you have crossed a line and libelled me, you post some evidence of your statement or withdraw it with an apology.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 02, 2013, 08:19:16 AM

Sarkeizen you have crossed a line and libelled me, you post some evidence of your statement or withdraw it with an apology.
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.

Besides I think you and I both know what I'm talking about.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on January 02, 2013, 08:25:56 AM
My posting continued...

So, temperature is a random movement of atoms.  The higher the temperature the more vigorous and intense the random movement of the atoms and electrons, where they bump into each other and ring like bells.  Naturally this movement and ringing makes the electrons jump up and down in their orbitals and so on.  Some of them take flight.  By definition that means they have extracted an iota of energy from the hot cathode.

So when you heat the cathode filament in a vacuum tube the 'classical' way by putting current though it you boil off electrons.  Likewise, I think it's reasonable to assume that if you put a tube into a 500 degree Celcius oven then electrons will also boil off of the filament.  I am not a physics expert here but I would not be surprised if some wandering electrons can land on the anode wire and as a result create a very tiny current flow on the order of 10^-6 amperes and producing 10^-12 watts.

There may be some issues related to the black body radiation of the very thin anode wire being different than the black body radiation of the very thick cathode wire.  I am just speculating, I am not an expert here.

My thoughts are that if you put a tube in a very hot thermal bath with tons of thermal energy exciting all of the atoms, that it may indeed be possible to extract 0.001 billionth of a watt of THERMAL POWER from that setup.  The amount of power that you are extracting from the setup relative to the ambient thermal energy and associated thermal capacity is so small that you would never in a million years be able to see it by making temperature measurements.

Yes, I am just speculating, I am not going to spend two weeks online researching this stuff.  But it sounds reasonable to me, and no 2LoT is being broken.  Many of us know that Paul Lowrence makes the "extracting power from ambient heat" claim using semiconductor diodes also.  He also extracts about the same amount of power as your tube experiment.  Tubes are diodes also - they let electrons flow one way but not the other.  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.

Just keep in mind that you are putting a tube diode in a bath of very high energy heat, and hot cathodes boil off electrons.  Apparently some get collected on the anode.  I am not surprised at all.

However, I am surprised when you make the leap from the tube test and claim that you can make a one-square-centimeter semiconductor junction produce a million billion times as much power as your tube experiment, and you don't even need a very intense hot thermal bath to do it.  Incredible!

Quote
10 remaining uncommitted licenses have been up priced to US$2 Billion each.

For me from a business perspective your line here is almost comical.  It's all just too fantastic and it's simply not real.  So Company X buys a license for $2B and then they can manufacture anything they want in unlimited quantities?  It all sounds ridiculous and is not confidence inspiring at all.

MileHigh

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on January 02, 2013, 08:26:37 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 02, 2013, 08:37:02 AM
Dear Sir/Madame

Please excuse Philip from school today.  He is suffering from a severely elevated sense of self-worth and needs time for the fever to resolve.

Sincerely,

<signature of parent or guardian>
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 02, 2013, 08:40:11 AM
set out to be rude to every person on this site that has engaged him
Also this seems unfair.  "Responded in kind to ever rude,arrogant posting of people like Bruce_TPU, lumen, Philip" might be more appropriate.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on January 02, 2013, 10:09:14 AM
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 suspect that if the forum gave people's details out 'willy nilly' it would be slightly more serious :)

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 02, 2013, 03:18:58 PM
I think you have libelled each other a number of times if you both wanted to keep score!
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on January 02, 2013, 04:03:03 PM
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?

Lots of noise!
I kind of follow so far but I don't think I have the knowledge to say yay or nay TBH.
 - from what I have read online (not taught) you certainly seem to agree with most smart minds out there - most people agree that in systems like this, people forget to throw entropy into the mix. When its thrown in, things fall apart and life savings are gone!
Mbm
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 02, 2013, 04:32:59 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on January 02, 2013, 05:09:33 PM
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.

Cool, thanks for that - I will lookup the guys you mention and have a read.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 02, 2013, 05:14:17 PM
So let's read this slowly, "Information THEORY".

Why, that sounds like absolute proof of something right there!

Ok, everyone ready....... here it comes!


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on January 02, 2013, 05:31:26 PM
So let's read this slowly, "Information THEORY".

Why, that sounds like absolute proof of something right there!

Ok, everyone ready....... here it comes!

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!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on January 02, 2013, 05:33:32 PM
... 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

The theory is already here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.4818

and in some other papers by the same author. And he seems to agree with you. The effect is possible, but the power output is tiny. How can PJH say to be able to extract incredible power from the same phenomenon? Tunnelling can't create energy from nothing.

H.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 02, 2013, 05:55:44 PM
So let's read this slowly, "Information THEORY".

Why, that sounds like absolute proof of something right there!
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".

Information theory is, in case it's not obvious a branch of mathematics.  In mathematics the term proof (also theorem and sometimes theory) are used differently than in other disciplines.  In an experiment "proof" appears to mean a level of evidence which can be established with some kind of probability (either a formal probability like in a randomized double-blinded placebo controlled trial or in a more informal sense).  When you do an experiment, all you can ever do is control for as many variables as you can (or can afford to) and hope that you have been careful enough to rule out everything larger than the effect you are measuring.  One well-done disconfirming experiment can overthrow your previous "proof".   

In mathematics a proof or a theorem is incontrovertible.    There exists no experiment, proof or equation which can demonstrate that there are a finite number of primes.  In fact for things that "seem" true but for which there exists no formal proof.  Mathematicians have a special name for that a "conjecture".  Such as the Taniyama–Shimura Conjecture made famous by Weil in proving Feremat's Last Theorem ( <- this usage of theorem is a special exception to the rule about how the term is used in math).  When proved it became the Modularity Theorem.  For things which are not provable but must be assumed mathematicians use yet another term "axiom".

Similarly in branches of math, such as information theory, decision theory and computer science.   There are theorems which represent "fences" if you will.  Things you can't do or build no matter how hard you try (which is why I asked that first question to MBM).   When dealing with something as poorly explained and defined as Quenco it's useful to try and find some places where it attempts to "jump the fence" if you can find a place where it does it greatly simplifies evaluating the idea.

A few experimental physicists and many engineers I've met scorn mathematicians for an over focusing on theory.  Some of that criticism is well-deserved.  For example anyone who's taken year 1 comp-sci will have spent a fair amount of time on recursion and recursive algorithms however in the workplace you rarely use them.  However what I'm highlighting here is different.  Either you believe you can build a machine that can deterministically tell you if a computer program will end...or you don't.   If you don't then you might ponder some of the hard questions I mentioned to forcefield earlier on.  If you do,  then you understand that mathematics have a certain degree of control over the world you live in.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 02, 2013, 06:10:50 PM
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.

But that of course doesn't mean he's wrong and I'm right.

There do seem to be some interesting references in the paper and I'll try to get through some later.  Also, it's worth noting that Arxiv papers aren't necessarily peer-reviewed (although this particular one seems to have been published in Physical Review A which is pretty prestigious.  That said, I haven't seen any response letters to it - which is an important part of the peer review process)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: fritz on January 02, 2013, 06:19:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on January 02, 2013, 06:33:57 PM
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.

The definition of a troll seems to be blurry - your post, to me, sounds 'trollish'!
Sarkaizen (if that's who you are referring to - sorry sarkaizen if I am wrong) is posting some interesting stuff - do the same :)

I am learning all the way so far - it's good to get opinion which isn't biased by belief.
As bill hicks said "beliefs are neat, just don't go shouting them out like they are truth"!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 02, 2013, 08:36:02 PM
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!

Yes sarkaizen tries to contribute, 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).
Which is why I don't reply.


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 02, 2013, 09:05:51 PM
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...
Quote from: me
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?
Quote from: me
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"?
Quote from: me
Fair enough.  So my next step was to give Philip the benefit of the doubt. 
This is condescending?  How?
Quote from: me
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?
Not to mention...aren't you kind of lying?  Didn't you  reply to me just a few posts ago?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on January 02, 2013, 10:17:27 PM
Hi Lumen,
 
Trying to talk to Sarkey is kinda like pissing in the wind.  All he does is pontificate and bloviate which is an obvious cover for a someone who lacked attention as a child. 
 
Cheers,
 
Bruce
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on January 02, 2013, 11:56:40 PM
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.

Keep up the good work.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: fritz on January 03, 2013, 12:31:04 AM
I try to waste as little time in that OU Kindergarten as possible -
otherwise I appreciate people wasting serious amount of time to discover physics and the relativity part of electrodynamics beyond typical walls of engineering and traditional science.
But if somebody invests serious amount of time with the only theoretical approach of "can´t" work - it gets interesting.
Why does such brilliant minds waste their time with doubting somebody elses work ?
Why do such brilliant minds start to insult each other personally ?
In the end I prefer people doing something.
I think there are more productive ways for broken brilliant egos to get along.

Well, OU.com has seen better days to come. It´s up to you what you make out of it.
Making Kindergarten posts in a Kindergarten forum - is that your goal ?
Who cares.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on January 03, 2013, 01:04:11 AM
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.

Keep up the good work.
Ha!  This from the king of fraud and lies!  How IS that OCAL magnet motor working out, Al?
 
Truth be known, I'm sick of the whole lot of you, and what you all have turned this forum into.  Always trying to run off anyone who posts anything out of the ordinary. 
 
And he (Sarkey) can't "give up" because he hasn't and won't BUILD anything!  Armchair trolls.  At least you build, even if you do lie about it working.  I know, it happened a long time ago.  Still, it just diminishes your credibility in HUGE PROPORTIONS.  Sorry!  Something about the boy that cried wolf and all.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on January 03, 2013, 01:46:00 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 03, 2013, 02:22:39 AM
But if somebody invests serious amount of time with the only theoretical approach of "can´t" work - it gets interesting.
Why does such brilliant minds waste their time with doubting somebody elses work ?
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.
Quote
Why do such brilliant minds start to insult each other personally ?
...or make ridiculous legal threats
Quote
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."

I think it's pretty clear that Philip and Lumen take the opposite approach (Lumen pretty much said this in one of his earlier posts) and Philip kind of betrays himself with his hyperbole.
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on January 03, 2013, 02:28:44 AM
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.
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.
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....
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on January 03, 2013, 02:42:37 AM
Hush. The adults are talking.
Really? Where?? 
 
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.  Go haunt a new forum, and take TK and the others with you.  Birds of a feather and all   ;)
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 03, 2013, 02:51:41 AM
Really? Where??
I'll give you a hint. We're not meeting at your house.
Quote

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.
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 03, 2013, 03:09:28 AM
So from his postings...are we supposed to infer that Bruce_TPU actually owns a large collection of troll dolls (and perhaps a copy of MSPaint)?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 03, 2013, 05:23:24 AM
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.
 
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 03, 2013, 05:41:38 AM
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.

Generally speaking Maxwell Demon devices are anything which can alter entropy in an isothermal environment.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 03, 2013, 06:19:00 AM
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.

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.
I suppose the prisim is a case of "special information theory"
 
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 03, 2013, 06:35:32 AM
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.
Quote
I suppose the prisim is a case of "special information theory"
So far you haven't shown how a prism affects thermal entropy.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: forcefield on January 03, 2013, 07:42:37 AM
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.

Put Quenco in an insulated box and let it power an electric motor that lifts a weight.  The temperature in the box goes down, while the usable stored energy of the weight goes up.

There's undoubtedly more order in the system than there was before.  Therefore, I claim reduced entropy.

Is this not how Quenco is being "advertised?"  Is this not a reduction of entropy?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 03, 2013, 04:22:31 PM
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 :) )
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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 03, 2013, 05:31:41 PM
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.
No measurement of the energy needs to be made to achieve the sorting in that the measurement itself has already sorted it.
The electrons sort themselves from random energies, like photons through the prisim. Though this could be considered counting or information at this point, it is a measurement after the fact.
 
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 03, 2013, 08:08:42 PM
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.

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. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 04, 2013, 02:44:26 AM
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.

Though a number of MD's sort by energy level, they first determine the level which now falls into information theory and these MD's can never work.
For a MD to work, it must not perform any test on the quantum objects or the test will alter the object.
Through the prisim, the photons sort because of their individual properties, in a quenco, the electrons sort by their accumulated kinetic energy and no test is performed to select the electrons.

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.

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.

While you're at it, why don't you build a machine that can deterministically tell you if an arbitrary computer program will end. :)

In a realistic term this may not be as difficult as you suggest.
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.

Due to the instruction set of the CPU used in the test, the random data would develop a pattern of predictability based on the size of the arbitrary program and you could know the probability of any size program ending in a given time.

Seems like a waste of time to me, being a computer programmer for 30 years.


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 04, 2013, 03:59:01 AM
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.

Sorry for not responding to your other comments they were way too vague.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 04, 2013, 08:51:50 PM
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 time, then a curve could be plotted the would show the probability of those that did not end and yet might in more time.
You spend a lot of time trying to find a point that makes the solution not feasable. Most of the time I would suspect the original concept is missing most of the detail as engineers know " the devil is in the detail"
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 04, 2013, 09:30:27 PM
Once you determine the data including those that did not end in the selected time
What 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?
Quote
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.
Quote
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?
Quote
Most of the time I would suspect the original concept is missing most of the detail
It 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 also notice you've kind of been unable to move your prism argument forward. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on January 05, 2013, 01:18:07 AM





***** $200,000 University Challenge *****

2nd Law of Thermodynamics Violation


SEBITHENCO DEVICE



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.

If an approved University tests such a device and it does not violate 2LOT they shall receive US$200,000.

It is a condition of the challenge that should the device unequivocally violate 2LOT then the University must issue a public statement in support with at least 2 Professors of the University signing a copy of the experimental report.



www.quentron.com


I thought it might be of interest to people here at Universities or who know people at universities to pass on this challenge.


This is my last post here as the admin has done nothing about the malicious libel.


I have contacted my Solicitor to meet with him on monday to file an action.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on January 05, 2013, 01:51:42 AM
Be sure to ask your solicitor whether or not you should put 200,000 dollars in an escrow account, before making these "bets" or challenges or offers or whatever you want to call them. You might learn something ....er..... valuable.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 05, 2013, 02:20:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: forcefield on January 05, 2013, 04:54:41 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 05, 2013, 05:14:47 AM
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.

So the claim is the device unequivocally violates 2LOT and also produces 1 Watt of power in an isothermal environment,  At what temperature?  Room temperature?  I'm pretty sure that's easy to invalidate.   So if it doesn't violate 2LOT you get $200,000 but what if it doesn't produce 1 Watt.  Is that sufficient to invalidate the claim of unequivocally violating 2LOT?  It's possible - I mean if Philip was doing actual science and we had an actual theoretical model for this phenomena the evidence could invalidate or validate the claim but since we just have the word of Philip and how is band of scientists and investors are completely satisfied it's impossible.  As it stands, getting less than 1 Watt doesn't seem to have any official standing in the Quenco-verse.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: forcefield on January 05, 2013, 06:22:40 AM
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???
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 05, 2013, 06:56:56 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on January 05, 2013, 09:35:03 AM
No more claim of a February demo on the website.

I don't recall the use of the term "SEBITHENCO DEVICE" before.  The diagram on the website makes it appear to be a TV tube, but that's not clear at all.

I don't recall any previous references to a device outputting more than one watt.   The TV tube test alleges an output of about 10^-12 watts.  Philip's "real" device will output tens of watts, it's supposed to be able to power an iPad, right?  So what is this mysterious one-watt device?

Quote
Immersed in a single reservoir of heat it will produce a continuous electrical output exceeding 1 Watt.

One more time, there is no characterization of the nature of the electrical output from the device.  No person that has allegedly been in years of development of a device that outputs electrical power would not include this information.

Less than two months now for Philip to deliver a real working device that outputs tens of watts like he promised in December.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on January 05, 2013, 06:27:58 PM
I just got this PM from PJH. I wonder what his "solicitors" will say about this.

Quote
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.

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.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on January 05, 2013, 07:05:07 PM
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 PJH is getting into the US litigious way of life a little too heavily....or doesn't understand basic law at least!!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 06, 2013, 03:21:31 AM
Well said :)
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".  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.

Anyway, moving on.  So I don't really know what lumen was on about concerning prisms but I'll guess that like Phil he assumes that there is some special mechanism which allows you to sort for free.   The problem with that approach is that even if you for some reason think you can make decisions without having information.  You create another problem.  See like it or not a MD device can be used to represent information.  If somehow it's able to represent information without any kind of temporary storage.  Then it's, by definition deriving this information from something.  However it seems pretty clear that an MD of this sort is an O(1) device.  That is the time it takes to 'decide' isn't a function of the energy state of the particle it's making the decision on.  Which violates one of the earliest quantum computing theorems BBBV.  Which states that even a quantum computer can not derive an oracle (an unknown value)  in less than sqrt(n) time.

Now as I said earlier, I'm smart enough to know that this isn't a formal proof but it just goes to show to Philp (and Lumen) that information theory and computational complexity aren't things you can simply just laugh off (as Philip did in his earlier Quenco theory page).  That said I urge you to read about this stuff yourself because right now I'm the only person here who appears to know anything about this subject and it's always bad to get your info from a monolithic source.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on January 07, 2013, 12:15:33 AM
I think Philip has kind of showed his hand as "not a very nice person".

HA!  The Pot calling the Kettle Black. 
You keep bringin in my name, when asked not too, troll.  You have the personality of a stalker, by the way.  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?) but you have defamed Philip as a person time and time again.  aprox 58 times.  There is no moderation on this board simply because probably Stefan does not believe in the tech.  If he did, you would alread be banned from this thread, like MH was banned from the friction heater thread for harrassing Gabriel.
 
Build something troll.  Oh, forgot, trolls don't build they only armchair critisize other who dare to dream.  Otto used to call your lot PC heroes.  But that is too nice of a term.  PC Trolls. 
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 07, 2013, 01:42:05 AM
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.
Quote
You keep bringin in my name, when asked not too
You keep acting like someone who thinks they deserve respect. 
Quote
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.
Quote
I hope Philip does indeed sue your tail off.
 
Because wishing bad things on people is always the right thing to do.   You're a pretty bad advertisement for your religion, just sayin'
Quote
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?
Quote
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.

Also, it's been mentioned to you that Philip agrees with the assessment.
Quote

Build something troll. Oh, forgot, trolls don't build they only armchair critisize other who dare to dream.
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on January 07, 2013, 03:50:02 PM
Bruce:

Quote
If he did, you would alread be banned from this thread, like MH was banned from the friction heater thread for harrassing Gabriel.

Admittedly I asked Gabriel the same question several times.  Gabriel ignored my question every time.  My belief is that the reason he ignored my question is that he simply did not have an answer, and he was not prepared to admit that he did not have an answer.  So in the end he tried to use crude deflection and pretense by saying that he was not going to "spoon feed" me.

As are reminder, here is how I asked my question the first time:

Quote
...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.

Is there anything wrong with my line of questioning?  Why do you think he refused to answer?

The moral of the story is that when someone makes a proposition, and especially if it is a free energy proposition, then all people should be encouraged to ask questions from differing viewpoints and they should have a reasonable expectation to get a reply.  That is the very reason this forum exists.

And I know Bruce that you sometimes get emotionally attached to different propositions and you will actively discourage and even go so far as attempting to suppress some discussion.  You can get uncomfortable when someone asks a question.

You need to change your ways Bruce and let in the light from all angles.  It's time for you to start asking questions yourself, where sometimes they can be tough questions.  You are fully aware that many free energy promoters are bad guys that would love to steal the life savings of your grandparents if they could.

You know the old cliche when people compare OU and EF.  They say that EF is a place where you can't speak your mind and if you ask the "wrong" questions and say the "wrong" things you will get banned.  That's in contrast to OU where people can speak their minds.  We want to keep it that way and not get choked into a straightjacket of intellectual stagnation.

MileHigh
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on January 07, 2013, 06:05:38 PM
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.  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".
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 07, 2013, 06:47:39 PM
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.
Quote
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. :)
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
In your world, disrespet is ok
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.  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)
Quote
and lying is ok
I haven't lied.  Please provide evidence or an apology.  Since you're defaming me now. :)
Quote
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.
Quote
I personally think that it is a shame that you have run off Philip
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.  Prior to that Philip didn't even acknowledge me directly - except to make one spurious accusation.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
Everyone else has given up even dealing with you
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.  That's okay but please stop pretending that you're not the cause of most of the exchanges between us.
Quote
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... 
Quote
Respect is earned
So therefore lack of respect in your world is okay too.  Given any thought to actually posting something that was internally consistent? Just sayin'
Quote
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...

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.

Quote
Most here would declare in a loud chorus of voices, NOTHING.  And of course this doesn't matter to you
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on January 07, 2013, 07:31:54 PM

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".

You go on about building things but given the knowledge about specific things you could prevent wasting your time. With a family, time is limited so I prefer to gain knowledge from others before embarking on 'builds' which will result in nothing!
However, lots can be learnt from building random stuff without understanding it - it's just not good engineering practice.....at least not nowadays when QM laws are well understood.

Sarkaizen has good info - listen to it, save your money and time.

Stop trolling and causing bad feeling!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 07, 2013, 07:38:58 PM
Incidentally here's a link to BBBV - it's actually not an easy theorem to find a reference to as Quantum Computing, as a field isn't like physics in terms of size.  If anyone has problems with the terms I can explain them to the best of my ability.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9701001v1.pdf
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on January 07, 2013, 08:10:49 PM
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. 


My response in bold!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 07, 2013, 09:22:15 PM
Please continue to judge me
Not judging just saying what the verse says.  Perhaps you need to look at yourself more than me.
Quote
Your claim that Philip has previously defrauded on payments of rewards
Nope, 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. :)
Quote
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.
Quote
I have ZERO interest in presenting a cogent argument
Thanks for confirming that...so since you have no interest in cogent arguments...how about you just be patient somewhere quietly hmmm?
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
The forum members judge between me and thee.
Argument by popularity...Is logic ever a thing for you?
Quote
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?
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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?

If there's something that good people should do, it's good.  While many people convince themselves that flying off the handle about things you haven't read or things that you don't understand is in the name of "good".  I have some reservations.
Quote
And defamation and character assasination fit that category for me.
Neither has happened.  So how about you stop derailing the thread?
Quote
And you think you are a "big man"?  You are a very small man.  IMHO
I 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?
Quote
Hmm.. that is a tough one...  Let's see...  Oh!  Got it!  Because I think your defamation and character assasination
Wait? What?  So you think highly of your opinions because of something that is your opinion? Are you on medication? 
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
I am not interested honestly, in much of anything you have to say, right wrong or indifferent
Isn't that like saying: Truth, lies it's all the same.  I personally wouldn't be proud of that.  Just sayin'
Quote

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.
...and all of that is pretty much irrelevant to the thread.  So it's nice that you confirm that you're hijacking the thread.
Quote
   
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.
Sorry, you haven't earned any respect yet troll.  Make cogent arguments instead of constant pronouncements and pontifications.  Reason, not religion.
Quote
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. 
Quote

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.
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
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on January 07, 2013, 11:43:06 PM
You are indeed one of THE crudest, rudest, arrogant, hard headed individual, that has ever been on this forum.  EVEN MORE so than I thought, going back and looking over your abusive comments to just about EVERYONE.  Yep, egomaniac indeed. 
 
This thread is YOURs!  You can talk to yourself and your own kind.  I too, like Lumen, Philip, E2Matrix, etc., etc., am done with you.  Have fun impressing yourself.   ;) :) :D
 
And it shows there is no moderation at Overunity.com, which we all already knew. 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on January 08, 2013, 01:59:29 AM
@ all

Human beings tend to forget the purpose of what you are doing, and end up doing what is not their purpose.

This forum is to present ideas and projects in development, where inventors can express themselves, through participation of all achieve polish her idea, and can encourage all and avoid failures.

In this last post on the forum, we have forgotten the purpose of this thread, and have fallen in vain confrontations that lead to nothing.

If we continue like this, we discourage inventors and they will not participate more here, we will lose the views of skeptics who help us focus and get a foothold on earth, we will lose the optimists who give us the good spirits and looking forward further research, working and making replicas.

In union there is strength, if we are less sensitive to our differences and focus on what unites us, we could have a good atmosphere in this forum, and everyone will be happier.

Constructive contributions must be made.

Beg the eternal God, to bring the union that we need.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: forcefield on January 08, 2013, 07:28:58 AM
From http://quentron.com/index.html
Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on January 08, 2013, 01:31:41 PM
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.



cooling inside the sebithenco device is a consequence, not a cause.


The heaters elements are explained in the page.


The second law of thermodynamics states the causes, conditions necessary to produce work is a differential of heat.


If the sebithenco is not getting cool, where does it come the energy to produce electricity?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Qwert on January 08, 2013, 04:33:57 PM
Isn't the discussion here about a nuclear process? Like decaying? So, does 2LOT apply to those processes?
I'm not an expert not just in this field, but even in any field of physics, so please disregard this question if inappropriate.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: forcefield on January 08, 2013, 04:39:55 PM
The heaters elements are explained in the page.

I'm sorry, I completely missed the explanation of the heater elements:

Quote from: http://quentron.com/index.html
... 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.

So if I understand it correctly, they are not needed at all for the device to produce power.  Is that correct?

But, it sounds like the heaters are used to "induce a DeltaT in either direction."  That makes me suspicious.

Additionally, I don't have any experience with vacuum ovens.  Apparently, they heat the subject via radiant heat.  This isn't the picture I have when I think of a "single reservoir of heat."

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.  (I distinctly remember being cautioned against overheating the device as it might implode.)  That was more convincing, but perhaps that was the experiment that produced micro-watts, in which case I'm back to not being quite so convinced.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 08, 2013, 09:33:20 PM
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 headed
To 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: forcefield on January 08, 2013, 09:38:09 PM
Isn't the discussion here about a nuclear process? Like decaying?

It is my understanding that there is no nuclear process involved in this device.  Perhaps you might be under that impression because of the term "thermionic emission?"

Thermionic emission occurs when an ion or electron leaves the surface of a metal due to thermal energy.  Generally, that wouldn't change the metal other than to leave it with an equal and opposite electric charge - which would then typically be replaced by the resulting current flow in the circuit that the metal is connected to.

Beta decay is a nuclear process where electrons can also be emitted.  But in the case of beta decay, the emitting element actually changes into another element.  For example, carbon-14 will "randomly" decay to form nitrogen-14 and emit an electron in the process.

Thermionic emission can be stimulated by increasing temperature while normal physical changes don't affect nuclear decay.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on January 08, 2013, 10:05:06 PM
@sarkeizen
already gave you the opportunity to return to the purpose of this thread, since you insist on talk that has nothing to do with Quentron, please retire of this thread.

@harti
Please kick to sarkeizen and erase all the post of him make a lot Because of noise and nothing for the Contribute in development of Quenco.  Thanks.

@forcefield (http://www.overunity.com/profile/forcefield.78246/)
The sebithenco device and the vacuum tube are different devices, the sebithenco device produce 1 watt and the vacuum tube produce micro watts.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on January 08, 2013, 11:28:30 PM
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, and also that people cannot be legitimately punished for what they might do or say in the future. Perhaps things are different where you come from.
If you do not agree with sarkeizen, then refute his points with calm logical arguments. When you cannot.... then feel free to call for his censorship. It won't be the right thing to do, but it is your right to ask for it.... no matter how bad it makes you look.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on January 09, 2013, 01:18:10 AM
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

@Tinselkoala
is very different freedom from debauchery.
There is a small strip of separation between them, freedom is the conscious expression, taking into account that there are another human beings who are going to affected by your expression, and debauchery is your expression regardless of others, debauchery is selfish.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 09, 2013, 05:50:06 PM
So let's see if I can sum up some of the things I've been saying...

i) Either Quenco is a maxwell's demon device - that is it allows you to decrease entropy from an isothermal environment (by sorting)- or it is not.
ii) It is also either a deterministic device - i.e. you can depend on it for some level of output given some level of input - or it is not.
iii) A MD device can represent information through the state of the particles.  i.e. particles fed in will either be sorted or not sorted

If these things are true then...

iv) The contact (including electrostatics Philip!) between the elements and the device will create entropy sufficient to negate any decrease in entropy (Brillouin) unless the process is thermodynamically reversable.
v) If the sorting mechanism is thermodynamically reversable (that is it's net change in entropy is zero) it requires observation, recording and action. (Bennett)
iv) If there exists some exception to this rule.  It creates a machine which can make decisions without storing information but still can represent information. (by assumption i-iii)
v) Storage retrevial or erasure is an O(1) operation AND creates entropy sufficient to compensate for the negentropy introduced by sorting (Bennett). So whatever this machine is doing it MUST be doing so  better than O(1) in order to be more efficient than storage retrevial. (implied from  Bennett)
vi) If the information isn't being stored it is being derrived.  The maximal efficiency of a quantum device at derrivation of an unknown value (that is not stored) is limited to O(sqrt(n)) (BBBV).
vii) For all non-trivial states Quenco can not reduce entropy. sqrt(n) > 1 for all non-trivial values of n. (self-evident)

Some objections to the idea that algorithms restrict our ability to design a device.  However this idea is remarkably consistent even in places where there exists no proof of the algorithm.  i.e. there are attempts to solve NP-complete problems in P time with physical devices (i.e. soap bubbles) however they can not do so deterministically.

@Philip - Apparently you're not so busy that you don't read each and every post I make.  (Easily inferred by how many times the Quenco page shifts and changes to match something I've said - most recently would be the addition of "Feynman").  Why not just show me where my above reasoning is gone amiss.  My theory is that you simply do not know the material well enough to speak about it but please feel free to prove me wrong.  I'm sure your team of expert scientists can give you some hints.

@Bruce_TPU - I fervently apologize for breaking your "Not allowed to say things more than once rule" in this post.  I also prostrate myself for violating your "talking instead of shutting up being patient" rule.

@lumen - I also deeply and humbly apologize for breaking your rule about "talking about people" through my comment to Elisha below, my comment to Philip above (and perhaps my comment to Bruce above and perhaps my comment to you right now).

@Elisha - While I respect your right to believe that your moral code is superior to everyone else's.  Your moralizing in this thread is not only inappropriate for a discussion on Quenco but also internally inconsistent.  While I cant command the moderators as you do. I *can* crush your moral argument into dust.  So I kindly and respectfully request you to return to talking about math or physics.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 09, 2013, 10:27:57 PM
All that, and yet the drinking bird still continues to drink from the isothermal environment!

Go figure.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on January 09, 2013, 10:31:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on January 09, 2013, 10:34:55 PM
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!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 09, 2013, 10:44:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on January 09, 2013, 10:53:09 PM
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!).

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'!
No reason for him not to, every reason for him to do so?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 10, 2013, 12:36:14 AM
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.
Quote
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'!
No reason for him not to, every reason for him to do so?
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on January 10, 2013, 01:42:31 AM
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.

Of course, but that's even more unlikely than a quick snapshot of someone in a lab at Stanford with a Quenco hat on!

Quote
  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. Oh, and the website has reverted back to ridiculousness again.

PJH: Come on Phil, post us at least a picture of a prototype unit under test?! I promise not to post anything for a while if you do :)
It only takes a minute to post - take a break from changing the website every 5 minutes and post us some Stanford holiday pics!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 10, 2013, 04:53:55 PM
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.

There are only two things that makes me think Philip isn't confident:

i) He spends time attempting to refute his skeptics (although to some extent he tries to make it look like he is unconcerned).  If everyone thought that Sinterklaas wouldn't bring me a pony and I was 100% certain he would and it was December 24th.  I would probably spend my time making sure I had enough oats rather than worry about the neigh-sayers. 
ii)  His confidence - everything with him is "no doubt" this and "for sure" that.  It's possible he's drunk his own Kool-Aid but this is also the behavior of someone compensating for doubt.

@lumen - I again deeply and unequivocally apologize for breaking your rule about "talking about people" that you break all the time.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: doublehelix on January 12, 2013, 10:47:23 AM
If you see his website www.quentron.com he is offering $200,666 to any University that can prove his device does not work, such an offer seems to contradict the opinion that he has doubts. If I were still at Uni I would take up such an offer if it were made, and if I had the authority to do so. 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? He says no one has, that seems hard to believe.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 13, 2013, 04:46:49 AM
If you see his website www.quentron.com he is offering $200,666 to any University that can prove his device does not work
Well 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.

Some thoughts as to why this would be a waste of anybody's time:

i) A single professor of physics is - believe it or not - not inerrant.  In fact it would be easy to find professors of Physics who have advocated some of the most moronic things.  The point of science is that the consensus of smart people over time will create data that will stand the test of time.   Not, as Philip seems to believe.  One person, One experiment, Absolute truth. 

ii) As stated it's unclear if this device can be proven to potentially violate 2LOT.  In which case ALL experiments would not be a "clear violation" in which case Philip should write me a check.

iii) Since it seems pretty obvious that the point of this is to generate some press.  I would think you would have to clear this with someone pretty high up.  My thinking is that might take a while. 

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.

Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.

The plain fact is that Philip, despite his bluster, boasting and legal threats is a nobody.   Who is listening other than OU and moletrap?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: doublehelix on January 13, 2013, 05:41:19 AM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 13, 2013, 05:54:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on January 13, 2013, 07:55:22 AM
The web page keeps changing itself at a very high frequency. It's maybe appropriate to attach screenshots of the page under discussion.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 16, 2013, 03:32:07 AM
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?

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on January 16, 2013, 08:31:59 AM
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.

Too slow.....the site has changed again :)
Doh!
I think the screenshot idea mentioned previously is a good one - it's hard to keep up (pardon the pun).
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on January 16, 2013, 08:48:15 AM
Text copied from his site on January 16h, 2013:

Quote
We are back at Stanford working to produce our first commercial Quenco devices from 21st January 2013.

Quote
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]

I said from the very beginning that this guy was practically screaming that he was not real.  Now he has dropped the line that he is not going to make it by the end of February 2013.  If he really was offering "Playboys" as was stated in a previous posting then it's pretty comical.

I note all of Philip's supporters are hiding and have been hiding for some time.  If you want to come forward and state that you are losing confidence or you have changed your mind about Philip and his proposition feel free to do so.  That would be a character building exercise for you and you will not be given a hard time for doing that.

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."

MileHigh
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on January 17, 2013, 12:17:44 AM
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.

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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 17, 2013, 02:56:42 PM
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...

Quote from: Philip Hardcastle
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...
Quote from: Philip Hardcastle
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
Quote from: Philip Hardcastle
I am passing time since the Uni Lab failed to deliver before their winter break.
Sound at all familiar to anyone here?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: steeltpu on January 17, 2013, 04:18:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on January 17, 2013, 04:53:15 PM
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.

Preserved for posterity.

PJH put that offer of the magazine subscriptions himself, nobody hacked his website, and you, "steeltpu" are the sick and confused puppy. Why don't you try to refute some actual points made, like those MH mentioned: the continuing claims of working samples, the continuing missed self-imposed deadlines, the continuing changes of content and meaning on PJH's website? Because you cannot, that's why.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on January 17, 2013, 05:02:17 PM
A couple more screenshots that may be helpful:


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on January 17, 2013, 06:31:21 PM
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 17, 2013, 07:37:57 PM
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.

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...
Quote from: Trim
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.

Soooo what's your explanation now Bruce_TPU?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on January 17, 2013, 07:48:45 PM
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.

Have you actually read through this thread or followed the quenco website - really, come on, Sarkeizen has posed the most sensible questions here.

Remind me what you have done....apart from the above childish rant?
You say the guy has sh** for brains - why not read the thread and prove him wrong? Nobody else here appears to have the intellect to do it?

Seriously, quenco doesn't appear to have any arguments FOR it unless you have one?

All the usual signs are there - Steorn, JLN etc - are you really saying that quenco is even possible!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on January 17, 2013, 07:49:53 PM

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on January 17, 2013, 07:54:47 PM
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?

Oh my!  It it was posted on Moletrap then it must be true!  There are no hackers, photoshoppers etc. out there.  My bad.
 
I am telling you that is not the character of Philip Hardcastle and is a step taken to discredit him.  Not surprised by this, other than they took so long.  P.S.  Philip actually uses his real name.  First and last.  And always has.  What is your real name?  Tk, how about you, while we are talking about someones "character".   
 
We will wait and see what comes of quenco.  All else here is simply humorous diversion. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 17, 2013, 08:12:27 PM

Oh my!  It it was posted on Moletrap then it must be true!
Bruce_TPU you just switched your argument.  First it was that *I* had Photoshopped something now it's "somebody".

Well Philip posts on Moletrap and the offer was validated by Trim who Philip (on Moletrap) frequently validates and has stated that he lets Trim release information for him and speaks on his behalf occasionally.  If he was saying something that Philip disagreed with why isn't he correcting him?  It also appears that Philip has been posting to Moletrap longer than OU and posts more frequently.  Again why is your personality assessment of Philip so accurate?  Oh that's right...no reason at all.

Quote
There are no hackers
So was it a hack then?  Doesn't that mean it can't be a photoshopped image?  Just sayin'
Tell you what you, in your tiny, tiny, tiny mind figure out exactly what you're trying to say.  Then come and make a babbling and incoherent post about it here.

Quote
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?

Quote
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?

Quote
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.
Quote
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on January 17, 2013, 09:52:27 PM
Ahh, Sarkey, I never wish you harm.   :)
 
We will wait and see.  IF Philip did indeed post that, then all credibility is out the window.  But, I still do not believe he has, nor would.  Just saying. . . .   We will see.
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 17, 2013, 10:26:34 PM
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.

One day, you will learn to think in a clear and useful way.  I doubt it will be soon.
Quote
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on January 18, 2013, 12:02:37 AM
Well.... the magazine offer WAS indeed posted on Philip Hardcastle's website, many people saw it THERE, not only in the saved screenshot.

Where is Philip Hardcastle's denial that he posted it himself? Where is any evidence that his website was "hacked" and unauthorized offers of magazine subscriptions were made?

There is no mention, today, of any offer or challenge whatsoever on Philip Hardcastle's website. Just another moving target.

I invite everyone who actually saw the posting on Philip Hardcastle's website to speak up and say so.

I saw it there.

Today's screenshot:

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Qwert on January 18, 2013, 01:54:26 AM
November 1 2012: www.quentron.com/index.html (http://www.quentron.com/index.html)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: not_a_mib on January 18, 2013, 04:56:53 AM
The screen shot above appears to show chemtrail remnants.  It must be a clue about some conspiracy!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 on January 18, 2013, 05:05:43 AM
Apes always have wars, It's what we are best at. find a reason then go to war, it is so us.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on January 18, 2013, 07:39:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 18, 2013, 02:27:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: conradelektro on January 18, 2013, 03:16:13 PM
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?

And in case Mr. Hardcastle has a medical condition, he will even less listen to logical arguments.

The scary facts are, that Mr. Hardcastle finds followers and that some assume he is interested in a scientific discussion.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 18, 2013, 04:38:01 PM
@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.

That could, of course all be co-incidence.  However I'm not that interested in convincing Philip.

I'd like to see the OU fanboi's actually break out of their stupid "have patience" arguments.  Bruce_TPU is almost on the edge if he let's himself entertain some of the questions that he so-far refuses to let himself think about.

The fact of the matter is that in life we are constantly faced with having to make decisions without fully knowing.  Decisions under uncertainty is what some math texts refer to this as and if I can help pry open the iron box of faith that many people here keep their rationality in - even a little then I would think that's a good thing.   On top of the entertainment value of this thread of course...like watching lumen try to solve something that computer scientists proved impossible 70 years ago.

Some of the "nature is the only law" rhetoric is amusing too.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on January 19, 2013, 05:40:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 19, 2013, 07:53:56 PM
Typical of the selfish nature of human beings
Your moralizing is equally, if not significantly more selfish and less useful than my critique of Philip's science and his person.
Quote
highlighting the failures of a human being
When 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.
Quote
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.

As it stands there's no reason, certainly none highlighted by you in your needlessly vague posts that the things I'm talking about are something I have a problem with.  I have no web page which offers burlesque to educational institutions.
Quote
"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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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?
Quote
Please Focus on science
Same 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.
Quote
you can not talk about something you have not experienced it yourself
Wrong 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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on January 19, 2013, 08:11:36 PM
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.

He probably offended some people with that 'joke' - for no reason either! He took what he sold as 'professional' and made it ridiculous!

Oh, and the $10 experiment needs $100,000 worth of equipment to do properly - given that the website is now a joke, nobody is going to do this experiment and get anything meaningful from it.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on January 19, 2013, 09:48:38 PM
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 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: doublehelix on January 19, 2013, 09:55:15 PM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on January 19, 2013, 11:27:45 PM
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?

That's very different and you know it, Hawkings is a local boy around here (cambridge) and his jest was done with a certain (mathematically proven) knowledge ie. he knew his bet was won years ahead!

To compare PJH with SH is a little silly.

I don't think PJH is the next SH!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on January 20, 2013, 12:39:33 AM
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?

Well..... doublehelix, newbie..... here's the PM that I received a few days ago, from Philip J Hardcastle, unedited ... or whatever he calls himself. Who is being bullied, libelled, character assassinated?

Quote from: Philip J Hardcastle

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.

Now.... would you care to reconsider your remarks, doublehelix, or focus them a bit better?  Because it looks to me like you are very much off target here.

Why isn't Hawking criticized here? Maybe it's because he isn't making absurd claims of a free energy device that violates 2LoT with no evidence, and he hasn't missed deadline after deadline after self-imposed deadline, and he doesn't keep moving his goalposts, and ... he doesn't insult people like Philip J Hardcastle (or whatever he wants to call himself) does.

Incidentally... it is Hawking, not Hawkings. If you are going to cite references and quote people out of context, you might at least have the courtesy to get people's names right.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 20, 2013, 01:10:44 AM
I have to say there is a very bad vibe in this forum with page after page of character assassination going on
I've been trying to talk to elisha about his behavior.
Quote
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.

  The point here, which you tried so very, very hard to miss is that whatever one thinks about Playboy/girl it is hard to take the bet seriously anymore.  His preferred choice of "entertainment" is, for the most part irrelevant.  He could have offered a subscription to "Sparkle World" or the boxed set of BBC's Sherlock (which is actually superb entertainment).   He also reduced the cash award by more than a third.

Quote
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 20, 2013, 03:54:18 AM
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,
I believe she did do the $10. experiment, and did post the results.
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Qwert on January 20, 2013, 11:18:15 AM
Here Elisha describes his replication of the test:
http://www.overunity.com/12207/quentron-com/msg342395/#msg342395
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: conradelektro on January 20, 2013, 02:58:49 PM
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 21, 2013, 04:09:52 AM
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?

 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on January 21, 2013, 05:37:10 AM
Well, thank you for pointing out Elisha's work. I can only wonder why he did a confirmatory demonstration instead of a true experiment with proper controls. "Why" being used rhetorically of course, since I know very well "why".

For example.... what would have happened if, instead of the valve .... he put a potato in the oven, connected as shown? Or a ball of steel wool? Or simply a big coil of wire? Do potatoes violate 2LoT ?
MileHigh's post immediately after the photos of Elisha's demonstration makes the point that an honest researcher spends more time and money trying to _rule out_ all possible other explanations. There are all kinds of alternative explanations for voltage and current shown on meters in kitchens. None of them are ruled out.... especially the fact that the meter is at a vastly different temperature than the device under test.

I have a theory that the photoelectric effect is fictitious, and that solar PV cells really work by the action of solar fairies, floating down from the sun on gossamer wings, tickling the material and making Zipons laugh, so they spin around and their gyrokinetic fields produce signals of voltage and current. My proof is that I put a solar PV cell in the sun and my meters show unequivocally that there is voltage and current. Therefore my theory has been shown to be correct, over and over, and I've done the experiment many times in many different locations. In addition, the experiment doesn't work at night, when solar fairies are sleeping. I offer a subscription to the magazine Fantasy and Science Fiction to any major University that repeats this experiment and does NOT find a voltage and current produced. This offer expires on the 31st of February.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Qwert on January 21, 2013, 01:15:40 PM

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?

 

Elisha doesn't mention if he did so in his test, however.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 21, 2013, 02:43:35 PM
Other than Milehigh and TK look what does get mentioned wrt Elisha's test.
Quote from: mikestocks2006
Hi Elisha, nice work.
Thanks for posting the results.
Quote from: Trim12
Very nice, well done.
Quote from: lumen
It's strange how those with little, can do so much and those with so much, do so little!

Very good job Elisha!

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 21, 2013, 07:23:03 PM
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!

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.

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.

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.

Of course some people here that do not understand why this works, will simply argue that it does not work, but even Elisha's simple test is additional evidence that it does work, and all the talking in world does not provide any evidence that it does not work.
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 21, 2013, 09:20:50 PM
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). :)

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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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).

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
but even Elisha's simple test is additional evidence that it does work
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? 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 21, 2013, 11:18:33 PM
(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?

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.
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 22, 2013, 01:55:04 AM

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 22, 2013, 02:30:49 AM
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.
It just makes you look stupid.
 
Well, I just have to run, I have some real world projects to work on.(and of course I must restrain my ego because otherwise, I might seem to be overly obnoxious)
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 22, 2013, 02:47:22 AM
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:

"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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 22, 2013, 03:57:39 AM
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'm thinking the insults must increase your IQ right?
 
I did answer the exact question you asked, but if you need an answer for the next question.
 
I'm not saying it's impossible, because you could even guess which hand the blue pill is in, that you severely need!
 
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 works, but EVERYTHING you say can do nothing to disprove the test results. Your words are not a test and have no real value especially now that you admit you do not understand the theory of operation.
 
So either go do some tests and prove it does not work, or dig up some better insults to increase your intelligence!
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: ramset on January 22, 2013, 04:32:04 AM
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 22, 2013, 05:35:37 AM
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.
Quote
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.

So a) No you didn't answer my original question.  If something can be *deterministically* correct then you *can* rule something out.  This is a pretty fundamental term in computer science.  Even in philosophy the term maintains the gist of what is meant in CS: The belief that results are pre-ordained.  This is, in case you haven't guessed the opposite of "predicting a probability".   How long did you say you were a programmer for again?  Was it just writing code to see when the fries are done?

Now b) You're also wrong in a pretty amusing way.  According to you a proof of Turing's "halting problem" is insufficient (actually if you think about your statement - which you haven't you'll see that what you're actually arguing is that Turing's proof is meaningless).  Instead you claim you actually ABSOLUTELY MUST know how the program works (in every aspect) in order to rule out that it doesn't.  Even when there is a mathematical proof that no such program can exist.

Anyway now that I've schooled the 30 year veteran of engineering who also claims to have been a programmer for 30 years.  What's the lesson?  It's alright to be vague and pretend you've got some hidden wisdom but you should at least have a fundamental grasp of the terms you're using.

Quote
Now, Elisha's experiment, no matter how crude, only serves to reinforce the fact that it works
Depends.  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.

By your logic you might as well take five highly accurate measurements i.e. +/- 10^-100000 cm and average them with one very poor measurement i.e. -/+ 10^100000 cm and assume that each measurement contributes the same amount of information to the mean.  Do you see your mistake yet?

Quote
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?

Quote
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. :)

You may now resume  bringing yourself to orgasm.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 22, 2013, 05:54:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 22, 2013, 06:36:07 AM
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!

I get it, those "triumph of the human spirit" stories are nice uplifting things but the sad fact is that most of the time it isn't that way.  On the other hand you could just go back and watch Gattica again...

Just keep stroking (your ego).
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 22, 2013, 07:05:52 AM
Well let me rephrase that, "How easy it is once you UNDERSTAND how it works".

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!

I guess words just don't get it done!



Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 22, 2013, 07:26:47 AM
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.
Quote
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.

Or you could just not think and keep on going...stroke...stroke...stroke... (like in a rowboat)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on January 22, 2013, 09:06:54 AM
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?

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 22, 2013, 03:59:57 PM
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)

I see no point in listening to a blind leader! Come back when you have a clue.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 22, 2013, 04:04:41 PM
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.

Yes, it does seem odd that now two people are claiming the same thing is possible?

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 22, 2013, 05:42:50 PM
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?
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.

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.

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 22, 2013, 08:02:21 PM
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.

Oh, so you finally did read something on thermionic generators.
What a start, now you should progress to "work function" and then to electron tunneling.

Then maybe you won't need to admit that you just don't understand the theory behind Philip's device.

Super, keep up the good work and maybe dust off that old calculator you never use (you know the one that does square roots, not the duck one).

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on January 22, 2013, 08:10:47 PM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lancaIV on January 22, 2013, 08:25:43 PM
Madebymonkeys: Page4 Q: Reply #56 A: Reply #57

Sincerely
                 CdL
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 22, 2013, 08:39:16 PM
One of which appears to have quit years ago!
I wonder if PJH knows he's repeating their work?

The initial work on the Power Chip is close to Peltier devices in that they use a hot and cool side. This is very useful and one would wonder why they would not continue to produce these.
Then later, they appear to have started work on tunneling devices even though they said earlier that tunneling devices could not work, and now we hear nothing about the one using thermionics that already functioned, or the tunneling device they started working on.

One could view this in different ways.





Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on January 22, 2013, 09:01:36 PM
Madebymonkeys: Page4 Q: Reply #56 A: Reply #57

Sincerely
                 CdL

My apologies, missed that - looks like I am a bit behind (a bit like PJH :) ).
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!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 22, 2013, 09:34:07 PM
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).
Quote
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.

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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 22, 2013, 10:02:04 PM
My apologies, missed that - looks like I am a bit behind (a bit like PJH :) ).
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!
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.

There are lots of cost situations for power.  There should be no problem scaling (except wrt space) so the thing you would expect to be the bottleneck would be efficiency.

Quote from: The Power Chippery
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.

ROFL.  In other words, more than just a grain of salt should be taken with what was on their site.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 23, 2013, 12:20:10 AM
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?

What are you talking about again?
As stated "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"

The valve in FACT does violate 2LOT!

Why don't you get this! scratch scratch, Oh yes, because you ADMIT you do not UNDERSTAND how it works!

Well for the OLD  information theory and algorithmic complexity...which is, somehow over a 30 year old engineering veteran's head?
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.

Words of wisdom are often thought, but seldom spoken.

Ok then, Please come back when you get it.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 23, 2013, 01:10:32 AM
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.

Quote
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.
Quote
Well for the OLD  information theory and algorithmic complexity...which is, somehow over a 30 year old engineering veteran's head?
I used to be confined also by the same box confining others also
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. :)
Quote
, 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. :)

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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 23, 2013, 01:53:16 AM
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.

Let me sum this up in a way you might understand.
1: It's really not my job to try and get you up to speed on how things work.
2: Your matimatical proof does not work in view of previously observed results in the contrary.
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)
4: Put down the duck calculator, there are ones with other functions!
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on January 23, 2013, 02:43:57 AM
Hi all.


Yes, we do the experiment 3 times.


The first time with just the valve, the reading was increasing from 0.1uA  to 0.3uA then We unplug the oven because the room was full of smog because of the melting of plastic parts of the oven.


The second time with the valve and a halogen bulb as witness, and the oven was cover with additional fiber glass to get more heat inside the oven.  The reading in the halogen bulb was from 0 to 0.1uA and -0.1uA.   But the valve give a measure of the 0.1uA increasing with the temperature up to 3.1uA, then the valve melt and implode and the measure was again 0.1uA.  We also exchange the polarite of the leads in the tester and the measure of current change from (+) to (-).


The third time the test was with another valve, (a used valve), the reading was from 0 to 0.1uA to -0.1uA to 0.2uA but was not increasing with temperature.  We conclude that this valve was in bad condition.


We dont make any more test, because we need another valve and the proof was allready obtained, the next step was a professional equipment test, and we dont have access to this type of  equipment, also each time we make the test, the smog, the gas of the plastic melting and carbon fiber toasting make us sick for several days (nose and throat).
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on January 23, 2013, 03:40:11 AM
I can try inventing a isothermal oven setup in my head.  No Googling....

Some sort of a device that's like a wind tunnel of sorts in a large oval loop like an outdoor track.  The air moves quite slowly through this wind tunnel.   Let's suppose the cross sectional area is two feet by two feet.  It might be 30 feet in overall length.  80% of this long wind tunnel contains heating and cooling elements and gentle air agitators.  The goal is to produce a light uniform breeze of heated air that is as close as practically possible to being 100% uniform in temperature.  The "payload area" of the wind tunnel would be a short section where the air moves by slowly and at a constant temperature.

Then you put your device under test in the wind tunnel and then you just sit back at wait somewhere between 24 and 36 hours.  You have to wait for the temperature of the device under test to become equal to the ambient heated air.  Some of you may think that waiting up to 36 hours makes no sense but you are incorrect.  In theory, it takes "forever" for the temperature to equalize.  For things like glass that is melted into the mirror shape for a large astronomical telescope, it takes literally years for the glass to cool down.

That's the type of test setup that would meet my criteria for a thermally uniform test.  Again, this is just my thought experiment, I am just sayin'.  I am leaving out lots of details including the one about the properties of the walls of the wind tunnel and how you heat/cool/agitate the air and lots of other stuff.  I just gave you the paper napkin version of my thought experiment.

It's a Long Way to Tipperary.

MileHigh
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 23, 2013, 04:25:45 AM
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.

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).
Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 23, 2013, 07:24:04 AM
...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.

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).
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.

That is about the same as asking if I can determine which hand the marble is in 100% of the time, The answer is YES I can! Just follow me down to the MRI unit.

Can I tell 100% of the time which shell the marble is under? Well yes, Just let me grab my infrared camera and I'll show you how.

You see, your questions are stupid to an engineer who is used to solving problems. Yes the mathematics can indicate an impossible condition but in reality, there are actual solutions.

Look at hot fusion, mathematics indicate it will work, other problems prevent it from ever working (or at least working to a usable extent)

2LOT has some weak areas that don't seem to hold true on the nano scale environment and the simple valve test indicates this to be one area that should be looked into.
I know of another similar device that uses a magnet to curl the electrons from an emissive surface to another plate and produce a current at room temperature. The magnet is setup to curl the electrons and they cannot travel back.
So the valve is not the only case to show results from an isothermal environment.

Elisha's experiment is not proof, but it is another indication of an already observed phenomenon.

 
You seem to like to state that because something has always been that way, it can never change. The truth is the only thing that remains constant is change.

 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 23, 2013, 08:40:38 AM
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.
Quote
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).
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?
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.
Quote
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. :-)

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".

Quote
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'
Quote
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.

So are you now conceding the point?  Or do you want to come up with another solution that doesn't work. :)

Quote
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. 
Quote
2LOT has some weak areas that don't seem to hold true on the nano scale environment
Yes, that's Philips line.  However it's really just a vague assertion...which you are parroting. *rawk* 
Quote
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.
Quote
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?

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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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).
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 23, 2013, 01:59:25 PM
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.
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.

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.
Let me show you where you fail, where entropy is reversed and continues to reverse and you can dig you self out and possibly adjust your thinking.

Starting from the first life on this planet, intelligence (at least for some of us) has progressed in a forward direction without basis. There is no apparent reason why intelligence would increase in the face of entropy when intelligence is really order.
It's like a computer designing and structuring itself, and your formulas are lost in the face of this, and in fact are just a figment of the very structure that was erected from nothing, defying the formulas.

The very fact that your formula exists is in itself proof that it is wrong!

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)

Kids anyway!




Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 23, 2013, 03:34:27 PM
Yes, you do have one thing correct, I had chosen a word wrong, EMULATOR should have been ANALYZER for the computer problem.
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.
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?
Quote
You must have had NO computer science. Just some trash locked in your head that someone told you.
Just answer the question above please.
Quote
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.
Quote
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)

Quote
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'
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 23, 2013, 04:34:55 PM
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 don't know why you insist on believing this to be an impossible task or why you consider this important.

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.  Again you fail to see it.

Just to be precise.

 
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.

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.

You could open at least one eye and think for yourself and in the end, well, you would probably still fail.

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.

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?

Of course not, he simply knows about where it will fall from years of experience.

From all this I know exactly where this "sarkeizen spiel" would fall if it were on my desk. ( just to be precise)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 23, 2013, 06:08:21 PM
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?

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?
Quote
I don't know why you insist on believing this to be an impossible task
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?
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.

Quote
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:

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?
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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?

Of course not, he simply knows about where it will fall from years of experience.
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).
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 23, 2013, 07:29:33 PM
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).

And you post another predictable fail.

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, OK

As far as the math, wow..... you can dictate conditions and make a formula that can't work because of them. Just too much.

It's so basic, I feel sorry for you. I didn't know








Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 23, 2013, 07:42:38 PM
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?

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, OK
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.

Quote
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!

Quick!  Make up a vague and contradictory statement about the "real world".  That should make you feel better.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 23, 2013, 10:16:00 PM
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.


So you have done some programming, and yet you tell me you cannot write code for a processor that could examine an arbitrary program and map all the calls and jump points, then run each instruction by first examining the registers and knowing the results, then proceed to the next instruction, in such a manner that all calls jumps and values and interrupts and return points are known before execution, and still believe that there is no way to do this?

You got to be kidding me, I can think of at least 3 ways and they would all work and I know of some utilities for micro processor programming that already have this function. So you say you have been doing this since you were 14 and now your what 15?

WWW.CNCZEUS.COM

That's a free spare time program I wrote a few years ago.

Yea, whatever you say.
I wonder if you can mathematically calculate what hand your pill is in today?

Oh gee I didn't answer the kindergarten math question, that must mean I admit to something.
What an ass. You have convinced yourself you live in a world of can't do, and that's why you are where you are today. (this will be good)

I know for sure you must be divorced.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 23, 2013, 10:49:51 PM
Vague, vague, vague, vague.  Did you major in vagueness?   Is that some subspecialty of engineering these days?
then run each instruction
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.

If it is not an emulator then does your program identify loops and then execute code to determine if the loops terminate or not.

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).
Quote
You got to be kidding me, I can think of at least 3 ways and they would all work
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.
Quote
Oh gee I didn't answer the kindergarten math question, that must mean I admit to something
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. :)

Quote
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.

Quote
I know for sure you must be divorced
Because that's not a personal attack. ROFL.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 23, 2013, 11:12:26 PM
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.

Method 1:

Again, yes like an emulator EXCEPT that the outcome can be predetermined. 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.

Ok method 2:

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.

Ok Method 3:

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.

Oh, yes you have been a programmer since 14.

Wake up, your dreaming! The fact is someone told you it cannot be done and you just blindly believe them because it's what you want to believe!

Get over it and move on!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 23, 2013, 11:23:26 PM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 24, 2013, 12:09:32 AM
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.

So if you have done any recent programming, you would know about the priority levels in the current CPU's and even a program under windows cannot halt the CPU. It would be a very easy task for the supervisory program to simply monitor all variables and program counter progress.
It would even be easy to detect infinite loops of any length because it could monitor the progress with shorter and shorter interrupt times until it found no change in any variable or jump conditions. Or even return after every instruction like debug mode.

That's why I say it can be done today. I understand that the point in doing so is not actually the point in indicating why it cannot be done but change is inevitable.





Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 24, 2013, 12:28:16 AM
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)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 24, 2013, 01:03:23 AM
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)

I'm saying it could be done on a CPU with privileged mode.
On other CPUs it would be dependent on their specific resources, interrupts, timers, range of calls and jumps and other available external hardware.



Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 24, 2013, 01:08:03 AM
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.

I realize that you, not having very much background in math might find the above statement difficult to understand.

Think of it like this:

Describe a processor or reference a real one and a case where it is unable to solve the halting problem.  You will be able to tell if the case is minimal if the halting problem can be solved by adding a privileged execution mode.

i.e. a 6502 which only has access to human input and memory can never solve the halting problem.  However if it had a privileged running mode (e.g. Ring0) it could solve the halting problem.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 24, 2013, 02:55:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on January 24, 2013, 05:58:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 24, 2013, 06:08:32 PM
...and while the rest of us are talking math and science Bruce_TPU comes in to whine...perhaps because he hasn't been able to participate.  Don't worry Bruce_TPU I'm sure there's some thread going on that involves construction paper and crayons...perhaps building a OU heat engine from it!

It's interesting that according to Bruce_TPU being right about something that is, for a computer science student about as fundamental as 1 + 1 = 2.  Is conceited. Also it seems he can't tell the difference between a formally proved theorem and asserting one is right because one can't doubt himself - sort of like lumen does.

I confess I'm a little eager to crush lumen's argument (and is astronomical arrogance along with).  He was going down the garden path so very nicely but as I've said, perhaps he realizes that he's done in and sodded off to nurse his ego.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 24, 2013, 06:17:25 PM
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.

Your math has a serious flaw! Your formula can be perfect and flawless but the values assigned are interpreted values by approximation and in the end make you formula useless.

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.

This it totally achievable with the new CPUs today but I was wondering at what point in time did this become possible, because someone should have challenged the theory at that time.  The problem is that this never changes the theory because it remains true in the sense of the machines operation, but the theory fails to include self induced external events by the CPU which cause the theory to fail.

The same is true of all the mathematical representations of machines, they either fail because some values must be determined to represent parts of the machine by a Human, or the fact that the machine can in itself alter it's path either randomly or measurably.

The theories are only trying to frame the method of the machine and not the limit if it's capability, for if it does, it will fail at some point because change is inevitable.

Some people believe that everything can be represented mathematically, and if it could be, it would only apply for that instant because mathematically, it's still changing.

So crush away!

@ Bruce

 Nice picture, but I don't think sarkeizen is that old!

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 24, 2013, 06:43:15 PM
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 :)
Quote
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?

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.
Quote
This it totally achievable with the new CPUs today
Nope, but I'll crush your argument once you answer my question.
Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 24, 2013, 07:19:33 PM
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!

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.

I think it's all a waste of time, the theory is obsolete, you just need to wake up and get over it.
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!

Just get over it and move onto something useful like the mathematical representation of the quenco chip. Then we can all see why it works.



Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 24, 2013, 07:48:12 PM
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 

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)
Quote
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...

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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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. 

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 24, 2013, 08:15:32 PM
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.

I am going to just finish you off here with only ONE requirement or ability of the CPU to trash the theory.

The control program simply needs ONE controlling instruction that the "arbitrary program" does not have access to.

Fin!


So you admit that your in this channel only to distract from the purpose of the channel with arguments about weak theories!

So you admit that you do not understand the principal behind the quenco chip!

You also admit that you are here to somehow boost your ego because your life has gone nowhere, so you play a chess game to feel better?

Why don't you want to apply your math to the quenco chip? It seems like it should be quite easy math for someone who claims to know so much.

I might need to step out here for a minute, so I can put on some higher boots!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 24, 2013, 08:59:48 PM
*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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 24, 2013, 09:24:36 PM
*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?

Ok, Ill say I can do it on any CPU as long as I have enough memory for my control program.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: DreamThinkBuild on January 24, 2013, 09:30:54 PM
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?

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 24, 2013, 09:54:47 PM
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.
Quote
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.)

The purpose of computer science, or part of it anyway is to figure out boundary conditions like these.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 24, 2013, 10:20:56 PM
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.

This could be a basic start for random or trial by error learning on AI machines.

Hmm.. In that case I think it can be done! I have an idea to do such a problem.

(but don't tell sarkeizen or he'll flip out)

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lancaIV on January 24, 2013, 10:57:39 PM
Pardon,quentron-off topic :   http://www.grossone.com/arithmetic.html

Sincerely
                 CdL
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 24, 2013, 11:35:30 PM
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. :)

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. :)  Or maybe you could write a program so the computer could pray to Allah (swt) themselves?

Conversely if an algorithm does exist then there's no reason, prima face to say that a genetic algorithm will do it better (especially since lumen has assured us all that it's not only solvable but it's EASY to solve).  Or maybe he's conceded at least it's non-trivial to design a program which solves the halting problem.

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 24, 2013, 11:45:23 PM
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?

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 24, 2013, 11:50:49 PM
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.

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. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 25, 2013, 01:33:21 AM
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.

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.
That's why I said it was a bad term for me to use not knowing if you knew much about computer programming.
Now I know that you know something about programming, but I feel you are lacking on low level assembly programming and hardware interfaces.

So let me ask you a question.
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?





Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 25, 2013, 02:10:54 AM
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....

No idiot.  Remember you said that a CPU with a privilege ring could run a program which can monitor the code?  An interpreter, in this case a program that loads our object file and then processes each byte similar to the way the CPU would - could be programmed to do exactly the same thing!  Remember how you described your "control program" it could interrupt the CPU (or act at the behest of an interrupt) and check variables and things.  How you talked about a debugger stepping through and doing checks with each instruction.  This is exactly what a byte-code interpreter does/can do!

I swear you lower the mean IQ of the forum with each post.

Quote
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 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 + your checks can solve the halting problem by making checks then does it not stand to reason that a byte-code interpreter like the one described above solves the halting problem in effectively the same way as a Debugger, Ring 0, hypervisor, etc.. does?
Quote
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.
Quote
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.

The CPU has a state, memory has a state - if we were talking about a CPU with privilege levels or other hardware then there are other factors).  Depending on the CPU even after a hard reset, or a complete power cycle the system state is not the same.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 25, 2013, 03:07:27 AM
*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

Wow, talk about getting up cranky.

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.

Under these conditions any failure to solve the halting program theory is not due to the program that's running but to the control program.
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.

How does this work! It's not as hard as you think.
But do go on!


Or maybe tell us all how this is relevant to the quenco chip theory that you keep avoiding!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 25, 2013, 03:17:32 AM
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.

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.
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...

Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 25, 2013, 04:16:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 25, 2013, 04:35:08 AM
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:

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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 25, 2013, 05:28:33 PM
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.

This changes the situation because the arbitrary program is not considered a program, but data to the preservation program, even though the data will run on the CPU and produce the same results, the outcome has changed in that once a determination is made (the program completes or not) the preservation program is still in control.

This is almost like a modern CPU where the programs run at a secondary level and could be considered merely data, though they do run and produce data and output, if they run out of bounds or become an infinite loop, they are simply terminated. (was that a program or data?)

In the end one can only argue that the theory holds true because the arbitrary program never ran at an equal level, but then it did run and did produce the same outcome, only now the results would be known. One might say, "now the results of actually running it", are known. (though it actually already ran)

Is this possible, YES. Does it prevent the program from halting and produce data, YES.
Does it violate the halting program theory?, depends on how you view it.


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 25, 2013, 09:25:47 PM
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.

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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 25, 2013, 10:05:02 PM
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.

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.
Usually in these smaller CPUs, the execution start point is simply a predetermined point in memory where the program is loaded.

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)



Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 25, 2013, 10:50:19 PM
It can indeed be setup exactly as you stated.

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.
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.

Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.

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".
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 26, 2013, 02:41:12 AM
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.

As I said:

"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."

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".

Yes you can, and it will report that it will not end because it will not end without something ending it.

Of course if you need this to be detected, then it's possible also.
With your knowledge of programming, you should already be thinking of how to do it, not how can I show it cannot be done.

You should already know that to the programmer, if something cannot be done, then the program needs to be changed so it can.

It stands to reason that anything that anyone does on a CPU can also be undone on the CPU.


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 26, 2013, 03:49:35 AM
"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.

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.
Quote
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:

{
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 26, 2013, 05:58:19 AM
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?

Yes, no problem. The best part is you never have to worry about recursion because running a copy of itself using a pointer never actually passes the pointer to the copy.

So the pointer to the copy, or even a pointer to itself, will run with a pointer to nothing popped off the stack which was already adjusted to a new area of memory.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 26, 2013, 06:56:14 AM
So what's the result of executing the following? (on the CPU, not through the interpreter)

WillThisEndOnSelf(WillThisEndOnSelf);
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 26, 2013, 03:48:58 PM
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.
The reason is because at some point the "copy" would determine a result on whatever it was running (unknown garbage) and finish.

Only the primary call had parameters passed so the pointer to itself received nothing to run.

Also, the operation would be additionally secured if the parameters are passed by copy, not a pointer.  For this operation to perform it's function on itself, it needs a copy because program code is changed temporarily in it's operation to maintain control.

It should be becoming clear that whatever problem can arise on a CPU, code can be written to solve.

New problem = new code.
Changing problem = changing code.
Morphing problem = morphing code.

whatever the problem = whatever code.

I have seen code so strange that it would decrypt itself just ahead of operation and then encrypt itself back after operation. Of course only a GAME would require this level of security. Did I say 8 years?

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 26, 2013, 08:30:03 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 27, 2013, 01:10:44 AM
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.

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. 
So in the end it will return TRUE because the copy of itself ran normally and did end.

But go ahead and and claim whatever you want, It's what I expected anyway.
It's not that you wanted a way to do it, you just wanted to say it couldn't work.




Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 27, 2013, 02:52:35 AM
Yet the paradox you claim is a problem, is not a problem.
Yeah, my son thinks he can win tic-tac-toe as well...
Quote
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.

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.
Quote
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.

 "Oh you know, it just works...cause....parameters!"

Meh...or keep hiding your argument. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 27, 2013, 05:33:21 AM
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!
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 27, 2013, 05:33:59 AM
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.

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).
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 27, 2013, 05:48:47 AM
*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. Did I say 8 years?
I ment 38 years.
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 27, 2013, 05:54:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 27, 2013, 06:06:39 AM
Lumen, you haven't been able to understand almost anything I've posted.   Changing that now would only be refreshing.

Really?
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.

 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 27, 2013, 06:11:02 AM
Really?
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 27, 2013, 06:26:04 AM
This is a good example about what I mean concerning your inability to understand what I say.

Wow, setting up some defense already.
 
Ok, here it is then.
 
Because the ONLY case that causes a problem is by running itself with a pointer back to itself. This would return an invalid false becaus it would see an endless loop.
 
Since there is only one case like this we can simply hardcode the result.
The very first instructions simply run a byte by byte comparison of the program it's going to run and itself.
If it finds it is indeed itself, it does not run it, it simply returns TRUE, because it already knows this program ends.
Now you can run this EXACTLY as you have shown to cause the return error, and now ALL cases work and return the correct result.
Ok , now you can claim you don't understand what I just did.  ;D
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 27, 2013, 06:38:27 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 27, 2013, 07:25:53 AM
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!

 WillThisEnd(WillThisEndOnSelf(WillThisEnd) )



If WillThisEnd() finds WillThisEndOnSelf() is indeed itself, WillThisEnd() does not run WillThisEndOnSelf(), WillThisEnd() simply returns TRUE, because WillThisEnd() already knows that WillThisEndOnSelf() ends.

Why are you still bothering, your king is down!

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 27, 2013, 07:34:11 AM
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.
Quote
If WillThisEnd() finds WillThisEndOnSelf() is indeed itself
English parsing rules still consider this sentence ambiguous.   Is "itself" WillThisEnd() or WillThisEndOnSelf().
Quote
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"

Also...
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on January 27, 2013, 08:40:23 AM
willThisEnd(thisThread) may return 'true' soon.  :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on January 27, 2013, 03:38:42 PM
@ Lumen,
 
Trying to talk to Sarkey is USELESS.  Please, for the love of sanity, ignore his sensless drivel and diatribes.
It is WORST then hitting ones head upon a brick wall.
 
Cheers,
 
Bruce
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 27, 2013, 03:42:14 PM
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.

Your just trying to put the proof on me to show it works. Let me just give you the one line that fixes the entire error you keep seeing.

WillThisEnd(WillThisEnd) = True

WillThisEnd can run itself, and produce a TRUE (yes this program will finish).

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.

Sorry, you have now learned a valuable lesson.
Don't ever think you know more than anyone else.
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 today. We can play another game again soon.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 27, 2013, 07:06:50 PM
Oh, but how the arguments are not correct, Oh, It might not even compile, Oh...... Oh.

Your just trying to put the proof on me to show it works.
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.
Quote
WillThisEnd(WillThisEnd) = True
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.
Quote
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?

Quote
Don't ever think you know more than anyone else.
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 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!

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. :)

Quote
I tire of this game and I have real work to do today
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.

Quote
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!"
Quote from: Bruce_TPU
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.

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 27, 2013, 08:39:52 PM
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.

Well, whatever you say.
I only see someone squirming because their proof is now gone.
So whatever you say, go try to save yourself as everyone watches you squirm.
The more you squirm, the faster you sink.
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 27, 2013, 09:34:20 PM
.
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. 

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)


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 27, 2013, 10:57:35 PM
*sigh* back to the same thing where you are hiding your argument from me.  Never met a more frightened person than lumen. 

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.  Never met a more fickle person than sarkeizen.
If WillThisEnd(WillThisEnd) then print "sarkeizen is an idiot"
Hey it works! The result is passed back on the stack!
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 27, 2013, 11:20:23 PM
*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:

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.
Quote
If WillThisEnd(WillThisEnd) then print "sarkeizen is an idiot"
Hey it works! The result is passed back on the stack!
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 28, 2013, 12:23:42 AM
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, the problem was fixed by allowing the function to run on itself as I have shown. This fixed the problem in your code also for the same reason. Now you are simply sidetracking.
That's not what this thread is about anyway, if you want to talk impossible code then start a new thread.
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 28, 2013, 12:44:42 AM
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?
Quote
the problem was fixed by allowing the function to run on itself as I have shown
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 - of course you don't and I'm guessing you're just trolling and have already realized that you're wrong.  Why else provide no information about your alleged "solution"?  Why spend all your energy resisting answering simple questions? If you can simply and clearly refute the already demonstrated brokenness of WillThisEnd() why wouldn't you?

Then again maybe you don't know that your "solution" does anything.  As it stands you don't even seem to understand the problem but since you won't say almost anything about your solution except that it works (and a little C-like code which is ambiguous at best).  This is a lot like claiming you won a fight with Muhammad Ali but refusing to get into the ring.

Kind of dishonest if you ask me.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 28, 2013, 01:20:55 AM
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 beach
Is this the original or just another tangent?
"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"
The only differance here is that the data could alter the course of the program to finish or not, but the fact remains, the result would be correctly determined in either case.
For the "C", you still aren't writing assembler worth a crap. Or even basic. Are we concerened with syntax here or if the program concept works.
In fact, this crap is simply a waste of time. You are just trying to support something you read rather than question if what you read might be wrong.
If you want to someday be somebody, you need to do your own thinking.
 
Now, is this the "original" question?
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 28, 2013, 02:46:45 AM
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 beach
Is this the original or just another tangent?
"WillThisEnd(program,data)
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()"
Quote
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).

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.
Quote
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:

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?
Quote
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. 

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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on January 28, 2013, 04:03:51 AM
@ All
 
Does anyone else out there feel like every page of this thread reads like the page before?   ::)  Can anyone say, "Groundhog day!"  Please Lord may this thread end.....end......end...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 28, 2013, 04:59:34 AM

Does anyone else out there feel like every page of this thread reads like the page before?
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. :(

I admit I was hoping the My Little Pony Reference might help keep your interest.  I kind of figured you for a closet Brony.

That said, between lumen's foot-dragging, boasting, refusing to answer questions and now it turns out he didn't bother to read a number of posts.  I can totally understand how this might seem tedious.

Thanks for understanding and being patient with him.

(I will try to put more cartoon references to entertain you - like Science Ninja Team Gatchaman!!!!)

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 28, 2013, 05:02:38 AM
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?

One coherent thought.
Well the big interface problem here is the C programming. I don't do much programming in C so it takes me a bit to understand it.
I program machine control software and need the easy string control and math so I mainly use Power basic, which lets me incorporate assembly and C into the program and compile to very tight code similar to C.
I understand that when I stated "WillThisEnd(WillThisEnd) = true"  It would have been better to say "Returns True" and not that the functon was set to a ture condition if possible.
I figured you would understand the concept as the function returns true when run on itself which was a problem for two reasons, one of which you didn't know about. Regardless, I corrected that problem.

So now, I understand that your function:
function WillThisEndOnSelf(program) {
     if ( WillThisEnd(program,program) == 'true' )
        while (1);
     else
        return;
}
Is simply designed to never end as long as "WillThisEnd(program,program)" returns true.
 
So then running:

WillThisEndOnSelf(WillThisEndOnSelf);

Will force a false because it's true the program never ends, and in turn the false will end the program. Which is all very clever but does not change the fact that the original function "WillThisEnd(program) returned the correct results.
Though a false is returned, the program will still end, and is your point. However, the false that was returned was correct because the program never ended. Only the results terminated the program which are conditions after the fact and outside the scope of WillThisEnd(program).
Did the program correctly determine if the program would end?  If it had not, the program would not end.
 
 
 

 
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 28, 2013, 05:27:56 AM
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.
Quote
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.

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 one case will cause any implementation of WillThisEnd to fail then no program can be written to cover all cases.  QED.

Concede yet?

(GaiKing added for Bruce_TPU)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 28, 2013, 05:53:35 AM
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. This is not any different than simply changing the the results of WillThisEnd.

If not (WillThisEnd(program) == true);

This game is to silly, I give up due to WOT.
You can now claim your WOT victory.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 28, 2013, 06:20:17 AM
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.
Quote
This is not any different than simply changing the the results of WillThisEnd.

If not (WillThisEnd(program) == true);
You should provide the context for that because it doesn't make any sense just sitting out on it's own.

In any case 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)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 28, 2013, 06:23:31 AM
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)

It's not wrong until it gives it's result!

The change in status is based on the result of WillThisEnd(program);
WillThisEnd(program); must return the correct result in order for WillThisEndOnSelf to return an incorrect response.

Still, clever but WOT.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 28, 2013, 06:54:32 AM
WillThisEnd(program); must return the correct result in order for WillThisEndOnSelf to return an incorrect response.
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)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 28, 2013, 05:05:09 PM
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.
 
Just because  "WillThisEndOnSelf " failed sometime after, has nothing to do with "WillThisEnd(program,data)"
If not (WillThisEnd(program,data)); is the same thing.
 
The very last error that occured was the failure of "WillThisEndOnSelf" not "WillThisEnd(program,data)".
 
The proof is that to correct the problem, you would not correct "WillThisEnd(program,data)" because this subfunction is working correctly and always returns the correct result.
Even after the failure of "WillThisEndOnSelf" in the lowest brackets, the subfunction "WillThisEnd(program,data)" in the next level of "WillThisEndOnSelf" correctly detects the failure and returns the correct result. In fact the incorrect result are never returned, the function "WillThisEndOnSelf"  simply hangs up.

 
One can easily write a truth table of results to find the error was not caused by "WillThisEnd(program,data)" but later in the function "WillThisEndOnSelf".
So just because you wrote a program that fails to return the results of  "WillThisEnd(program,data)", is not proof that "WillThisEnd(program,data)" failed to return the correct results.
It's a failed attempt to show that the function "WillThisEnd(program,data)" returns the incorrect result.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on January 28, 2013, 05:12:49 PM
Fred and Barney, Starkey?  How quint.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 28, 2013, 05:59:10 PM
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.
Quote
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?

Failure requires a condition.  There were no conditions placed on the operation of WillThisEndOnSelf.   Therefore it can not fail.  On the other hand WillThisEnd() has conditions on it's operation and it failed to meet them.   You said yourself that we can feed complete random garbage into WillThisFail and it will still predict the action of the supplied program.  You were wrong.

If you place conditions on WillThisEndOnSelf in order for WillThisFail to predict it's outcome then of course you fail yet again.  Since WillThisFail no longer works on any program.
Quote
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.
Quote

The very last error that occured was the failure of "WillThisEndOnSelf" not "WillThisEnd(program,data)".
Not in any useful sense of the term "failure".  The only thing that could fail was WillThisEnd and it did.

Again, you should concede this point.

Bruce_TPU - Glad to see I'm keeping your interest.  After all I'm smarter than the average bear...and apparently Engineer.  In that spirit I've attached a picture of Yogi for you.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 28, 2013, 07:00:01 PM
Well I'm very happy you are correct.
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 1000W after the input of 100W.
This is so cool, in fact in the summer, I will add a "-" in front of the 100W and I will get -100W out to help cool my house.
Is this called the sarkeizen rule ?
I really didn't think this worked!
But it's good that you are correct that simply changing the sign of the output actually does change the results.
It really is a new world out there.
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 28, 2013, 07:53:30 PM
Well I'm very happy you are correct.
Now that I know that I can simply change the output of something and this changes the results
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.
Quote
I am going to add another zero on the top of that 100W light bulb and it should change the output to 1000W
Argument by false analogy.  The entire 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.

And again, I ask now that I've dealt with your "What's actually failing" argument and your "Light bulb" argument.  Are you going to concede this point?

@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 28, 2013, 09:23:16 PM
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.

Your stating fiction! I'm starting to think you never followed your code through.

There are only to results of your program "WillThisEndOnSelf()"

1: False , when the program checked by "WillThisEnd(program)" never ends.
2: program hangs , when the program checked by "WillThisEnd(program)" ends, which causes the program "WillThisEndOnSelf()" to hang up.

NOW
There are only two results from "WillThisEndOnSelf(WillThisEndOnSelf(program));

1: False. which is the correct result because the true produced from WillThisEnd(program) caused the program to hang and never end.
2: program hangs.

So now, if you construct it:

"WillThisEnd(WillThisEndOnSelf(WillThisEndOnSelf(program))"

There are only two results.

1: False,
2: True,

Both of which are correct!
Your problem is you are losing the scope of what WillThisEnd(program) is actually checking.

See, you just need to fix your broken program.


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 28, 2013, 10:01:20 PM
Yawn.  I love how this is annoying you.  Also I figured you would have gotten here sooner.
So now, if you construct it:

"WillThisEnd(WillThisEndOnSelf(WillThisEndOnSelf(program))"
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 29, 2013, 12:39:23 AM
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.


Nope!

To argue with a looser that does not understand his own code, is totally a waste of my time.








Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 29, 2013, 01:15:29 AM
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.

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!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on January 29, 2013, 04:00:50 AM
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.

Are you a web developer?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 29, 2013, 04:07:47 AM
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!

Your claim:

"That is it doesn't ALWAYS, predict the correct answer."

"whatever is the opposite of WillThisEnd's prediction."


I will just give you the one part of your code that YOU do not understand.


"WillThisEnd()" does not make a prediction.
"WillThisEnd()" returns it's result after it has finished running.
You think you are fooling the program "WillThisEnd()" by using it's results, but it has already finished.

Again, you are looking out of the scope of the function.
But it is your story, so whatever you say.

You see everyone is a welder, but not everyone can weld.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on January 29, 2013, 04:42:23 AM
What we are looking at with quenco is, essentially, a salmon leap for electrons.  There is no need for external intelligence in the process of fish of greater or lesser strength jumping up (or not) a leap.

I'm enjoying the programming jibber jabber though.  Let's talk about C some more. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 29, 2013, 04:45:54 AM
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.
Quote
Are you a web developer?
Is that supposed to be an insult?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on January 29, 2013, 04:53:11 AM
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?
Quote
Is that supposed to be an insult?
Why would it be?  Do you feel insulted by the context?  Why?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 29, 2013, 05:05:32 AM
"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?

What does that have to do with anything?
Quote
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!
Quote
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?
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: DreamThinkBuild on January 29, 2013, 05:06:34 AM
Sarkeizen,

What are you hoping to accomplish?

The code will go no where, it's turtles all the way down.

while(true)
{
    try
    {
        AddMoreTurtles(this);
    }
    catch(System.OutOfTurtles Ex)
    {
        Debug.Write("Function failed due to,
        too many turtles or not enough turtles
        in the system, depending on your theory of the origination or spawning of said virtual turtles.")
        break;
    }
}
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 29, 2013, 05:18:34 AM
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.

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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on January 29, 2013, 05:57:34 AM
I haven't the slightest idea what you mean.  I'll try to define "deterministically" as best as I can thought.

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.
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.
Quote
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 29, 2013, 06:12:47 AM
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. 

What was your plan of attack?  I mean you're wrong but call me curious. :)

Quote
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.

Haven't really touched it since perhaps one or two Dojo applications that are around the office. Goes to show how pervasive C-Style syntax. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on January 29, 2013, 04:56:15 PM
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.

Of course if you want to be constrained by limits of the hypothetical problem you are referring to and are not allowed to look at the code of the program then of course the problem stands as unsolvable.  But nobody mentioned that to lil' ol' me.  ;D

So, back to hot tail electrons and strong tailed salmon.  Neither need any sort of demon.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 29, 2013, 05:06:24 PM
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.

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.   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on January 29, 2013, 07:03:58 PM
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. 
Quote
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. :)

Anyway, are there infomation theory bears required to sort out salmon in salmon leaps?

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 29, 2013, 07:34:27 PM
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.

The whole point of this discussion was that Lumen said if I don't know the mechanism I can't tell that something doesn't work.

I don't know what salmon jumping is in terms of a formalism but if you can produce a formal proof that it is NOT a MD machine be my guest.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on January 29, 2013, 08:29:49 PM
I'm too busy with my thesis attempting to prove that there is NOT a Cookie Monster living at the earth's core.  Once that is done, I'm moving onto the teacup orbiting the sun and then I'll have some spare time.

All joking aside, the quenco proposition as described does not require an active sorting mechanism/intelligence.  Same with salmon leaps.  The fish/particles are sorted by their own energy levels vs size of barrier.

I think the concept is throwing people with its mingboggling simplicity.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 29, 2013, 08:39:08 PM
All joking aside, the quenco proposition as described does not require an active sorting mechanism/intelligence.
Not all MD devices do.

So what happens with your code analyzer?

Assuming your code is called: WillThisEnd(program,data).  Program and data are some way of delivering the program that needs to be analyzed and the data that "program" needs to operate on into your code and it returns 0 if true (program terminates) and 1 if false (program loops endlessly)

void WillThisEndOnSelf(program)
{
   if (WillThisEnd(program,program) == 0 )
       while(1);
   else
       return;
}

Now I execute:

WillThisEndOnSelf(WillThisEndOnSelf);

If WillThisEnd yields true...it's wrong because we don't halt.
If WillThisEnd yields false...it's wrong because we exit

Since WillThisEnd only produces True or False and must exit we have a proof by contradiction.

There are various ways you could pass "program" but they all work out the same. 

There are some other fun questions about WillThisEnd() - for example what possible complexity class could it have?

How could you, outside of running the program determine an exit condition which the program can not know in advance?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on January 29, 2013, 10:24:12 PM
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.

So it wouldn't really matter what I returned from WillThisEnd to your piece of code (should you be so lucky as to get a copy of my source), because in executing it in the first place you have an answer played in audio form with a booming voice shouting UVAVU! or ERANU! (with a suitably dramatic reverb) just before your infinte while executes or your function returns.  :P

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 29, 2013, 11:20:41 PM
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.

So it wouldn't really matter what I returned from WillThisEnd to your piece of code
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.

...and whatver you say we just do the opposite.

Sorry your code doesn't work.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on January 30, 2013, 01:37:44 AM
Well.... when one man reads implicit agreement where another wrote explicit clarification it's an unfortunate part of life, but somewhere a unicorn dies.

*bows head in respectful mourning*
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 30, 2013, 05:03:09 AM
Well.... when one man reads implicit agreement where another wrote explicit clarification
Not 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.  Any channel regardless of how noisy can be read at some non-zero accuracy  In which case your program still fails determinism.   How about thinking next time?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on January 30, 2013, 03:05:02 PM
All you've done is replace a clear channel with a noisy one.
Oh crap, my remaining irony gland has just imploded.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 30, 2013, 03:49:25 PM
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.

If you actually are serious...perhaps we can look at something that isn't so much a proof but an interesting example.  Can you tell me how you might detect the halt for a program searching for a string of arbitrary length in Pi?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on January 30, 2013, 06:11:55 PM
*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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 30, 2013, 07:15:04 PM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: doublehelix on January 31, 2013, 08:10:13 AM
I think the length of posts on the subject of a computer program on this quentron thread set an overunity record for trolling.

It is disrespectful to the members of Overunity and I ask Sarkeizen to please desist from making any more posts off topic.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 31, 2013, 04:36:38 PM
I think the length of posts on the subject of a computer program on this quentron thread set an overunity record for trolling.

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.

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Groundloop on January 31, 2013, 09:06:04 PM
From:

http://www.theimagingsource.biz/en/technology/ambientheatelectricity/

QUOTE:

The Imaging Source Technologies
Ambient Heat To Electricity Conversion

The Imaging Source Europe GmbH presents a new technology to convert ambient heat into electricity, while at the same time cooling down the surrounding area.

No other external energy is required besides ambient heat.

This new technology resolves several long known problems and opens opportunities for chip cooling without heat sinks, powering portable devices without batteries, designing tunable radiation sources in LIR and building new energy harvesting and cooling devices.

This technology proves that cooling does not require the input of external energy.

END QUOTE:

GL.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on January 31, 2013, 09:44:49 PM
Groundloop:

There are a lot of problems with that link you gave us.  There is a delicate art to reading between the lines when you look at a company's web site to determine if they are real or not.  I see many warning signs.

MileHigh
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on January 31, 2013, 11:31:52 PM
I think the length of posts on the subject of a computer program on this quentron thread set an overunity record for trolling.

It is disrespectful to the members of Overunity and I ask Sarkeizen to please desist from making any more posts off topic.
I could not agree more doublehelix!  Enough is enough.
 
@ Stephan -
Please BAN Sarkey from this thread.  You need only read his posts to know why.  Too many reasons to list here.
We members would be THRILLED!
 
Kind regards,
 
Bruce
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on February 01, 2013, 12:10:07 AM
Trolling is what Bruce_TPU does - posts deliberately provocative messages which are otherwise vacuous and you're right he should stop.

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.  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?

And re information/complexity theory as it relates to quenco as described.... irrelevant.  If anyone can think of a more fitting example than the salmon leap I'd love to hear it (although the salmon leap could do with the flow going upstream after the obstacle to really fit (or having an enormous sub aqua hoover there)).  No need of a mathematical proof of the non-existence of an imaginary demon.  On that note, even talking about disproving imaginary demons is borderline religious.  Especially information gathering ones.

Only time will tell, of an indeterminate but finite length.  The real world probability is looking good though.

* yes, you may say you tried with the Pi thing, but only a child would embrace a serious want with such insults.  So my conclusion is that you are all ego/Wikipedia and no brain.  If you could get time off from your photocopier repair job (or whatever you do), you could get paid similar cash for taking part in medical studies.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 01, 2013, 01:08:37 AM
Back from googling I see.
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.
Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
And re information/complexity theory as it relates to quenco as described.... irrelevant.
Why?  Please be detailed.

Quote
The real world probability is looking good though.
Please give a detailed quantification how this is so.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 01, 2013, 01:10:02 AM
Quote from: Bruce_TPU
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on February 01, 2013, 01:29:57 AM
From the guy who would post insulting images, to the guy who's talking about math and science.

You might want to hurry and let go that Maxwell Demon you captured, so it can stop this device from working, before others see it working.

Boink.....Boink! math, bouncing around in sarkeizen's head?

Doubtful.  :o

http://www.theimagingsource.biz/en/technology/ambientheatelectricity/ (http://www.theimagingsource.biz/en/technology/ambientheatelectricity/)


sarkeizen was not correct about the MD, so I put little credit in anything else..... well I guess there was nothing else.

I egged him on long enough to show he has no other interest in this channel, except to create a diversion.


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on February 01, 2013, 01:35:05 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on February 01, 2013, 01:46:30 AM
If I need to explain that, you need brain surgery.  Case closed.

Probably an implant would work best.

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)

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: doublehelix on February 01, 2013, 01:48:57 AM
I would like to contribute to this discussion by talking science.

Logically we cannot judge a claim of a violation of the second law on the basis of information theory if that theory maintains it, a violation of the second, as being impossible. Either the observations and conclusions of Hardcastle are wrong, or information theory is wrong as applied to this subject. To have a debate we should accept that there is a challenge made to the second and we should deal with it so.

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 01, 2013, 01:52:58 AM
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.
Quote
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 no, then the argument stands (with you kind of losing).  If yes, then aren't YOU admitting to derailing the thread deliberately?  Someone who, in good faith was trying to convince someone who was trolling isn't actually exonerating yourself them Lumen.

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.

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.
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.
Quote
Logically we cannot judge a claim of a violation of the second law on the basis of information theory if that theory maintains it
Huh?  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
Quote
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on February 01, 2013, 01:57:06 AM
Probably an implant would work best.

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)
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.

A Wikipediphile.  If ever there was one.

Absolutely great guy if ever anybody needed any artwork levelled to +/- 20 degrees.  Cheap too.  Crap at brain stuff though... best give him a nice sandwich and not let him see pictures of you kids.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: doublehelix on February 01, 2013, 02:18:04 AM
If a claim is made of a device violating the second law there is nothing productive in saying prior papers say it is not possible, to use such is to act like a luddite. We all have views, theories and beliefs but a debate about a claim must be based on testing assumptions, not relying on precedent or convenient prior theories arguing the exclusion of the possibility. I once read that the second law is so widely held as being true as it survived challenges, if we have arrived at the point that challenges shall no longer be considered then this forum is pointless, however we have free speech, the right to express ideas and the right to have different views, it is here that we should open our minds.

So let's debate on topic! Otherwise I am going to go to another forum where they do have some rules and moderation.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on February 01, 2013, 03:41:56 AM
I have asked to be made moderator of this thread Sarkey.  And if so.... well, let's just say for your posting nonsense..... (End; Delete)
 
Have a wonderful night,
 
Bruce
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: forcefield on February 01, 2013, 07:30:45 AM
From:

http://www.theimagingsource.biz/en/technology/ambientheatelectricity/

QUOTE:

The Imaging Source Technologies
Ambient Heat To Electricity Conversion ...

Based on their website, this looks like something that actually works.  It appears that it might be very sensitive to temperature. ("The working point of the micro-structure area was designed for an ambient temperature of 20°C/68°F.")  It might also be cost prohibitive. ("Both areas are made of gold.")  But it looks very encouraging!

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.

I too am somewhat impressed with 1 volt, but the power level is very low.  I got the impression that a steady state condition was never met - with the glass envelope on the verge of implosion just before the device begins outputting.  One thought that I have is that some sort of chemical reaction is going on.  Also, was it tested with electrical power removed from the oven?  I'd feel a whole lot more comfortable with believing that something exceptional was happening if the power level was measured to be watts, or at least tenths of watts.

And, the RF suppression capacitor makes me very uneasy.  This experiment should be done in a shielded environment.  If there's enough RF energy around to worry about adding a capacitor, then there's probably enough RF around for a hot tube to rectify it!

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: doublehelix on February 01, 2013, 11:14:36 AM
To say it is RF is to say the guy is so dumb that he (and others presumably around him) would spend years and piles of money without checking the basics, I can't see that.

I saw someone a while ago say it was radioactive and I saw somewhere a statement that this is could not produce more than a pA, perhaps someone here can do the calculation but you would have to think that if Tubes were made with radioactive materials they would carry a warning and that the effect would be known by a million radio age engineers.

Since he has stated the Tube type it seems also hard to imagine that a Tube designed to operate on signals could be a super high temperature battery converting some chemicals to power, again wouldn't that be common knowledge?

I think the areas to question might be photoelectric but you would think any experiment done at 500C is not going to be subject to much stray light, if any. If it were PV then surely this would be obvious.

I say I am at a loss to explain a Volt and a uA from some conventional source unless Hardcastle and his associates are so silly not to ask the same questions as we can. We surely must assume if it has been replicated as claimed that obvious checks would be done.

For the sake of an investigative debate rather than a speculation of incompetence let's assume it is not bad measurement, RF, PV, chemical or radioactive, what is left?

From Arthur Conan Doyle Sr...........When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

So ask ourselves this

Could they (many replicators) be so silly as to not eliminate the RF interfernce isse? I say No
Could they all design and experiment where the temperature across the device was say 100C? I say No
Could the device be radioactive to produce such an output? Well if it was it would amaze me that it would not have been obvious to a million radio engineers 50 years ago, so I say No.
Chemical? again is Tubes were chemical batteries everyone would have known 50 years ago, so again I say No.

What else?

PV? I think this is not possible unless you deliberately designed the device such, and as I understand Tubes the cathode is in the center and so not visible therefore not likely to be struck by light. Again if a tube was photosensitive it would surely have been a noted issue when used as an amplifier.

I cannot think of anything else.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: doublehelix on February 01, 2013, 11:21:40 AM
Just thought of one more, vibration!

Some tubes became microphonic, not sure why but I am guessing if the internal parts became loose.

I like this idea but I do not know that it could produce what is reported, but maybe it can.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on February 02, 2013, 01:19:33 AM
You know, I have come across, some years ago a company that had designed a type of mini battery that allowed ambient temperature difference to produce enough electricity to keep this micro battery charged.  I can't find my notes on them right now, but I did run across this very interesting patent and information.  I believe it functions in similar fashion as Phillip's nano design.  Using electron tunneling, in this case, via a huge number of micro diodes.  Very interesting, from Peswiki.  Oh, and P.S.  Sarkey has been moderated.  Thank you Stephan.
 
http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Charles_M._Brown%27s_Thermal_Electric_Chip (http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Charles_M._Brown%27s_Thermal_Electric_Chip)
 
Cheers,
 
Bruce
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on February 02, 2013, 02:38:20 AM
Hi All,

With Sarkey moderated or removed I am happy to post here again.

I consider (ed - not sure if he still with us) Charles M Brown a friend and he was a nice guy, I rang him once for a long chat in Hawaii. His diode is not the same as Quenco. To date the only device I believe (other than mine) to have publicly violated the 2nd was the device of Prof XY Fu, notably it had an asymmetry. Whilst a diode is certainly asymmetrical it has not been shown (to my knowledge) to be capable of persistent current flow isothermally. There is one other candidate for persistent current flow that was demonstrated by MIT and that was a um sized loop in a magnetic field, this field thus curling electrons and favouring flow in the direction where the curvature of the ring matched the bent electron paths. There view was that it was not a violation of the 2nd as they reckoned it could not be tapped, I thought that was not the case and expressed such to them but as usual people do not want to be associated with talk of a 2nd law violation.

I am sure there are a few dozen actual violations that physicists simply do not want to claim for fear of ruining their career, I have seen 2 such candidates in the last year but the authors (respected research physicists) are not willing to discuss. There has been one relating to a  laser diode that absorbed heat and so output more optical power than it consumed in electrical power and did so to such an extent that it appeared reasonable to imagine it could be looped. There was another involving graphene though that one went quiet very quickly so perhaps they jumped the gun. The overall issue is more that the skeptics like Sarkey are so arrogantly sure that an experiment showing a violation is the result of incompetence, I have clearly stated that many have now replicated in a sophisticated way the $10 experiment and all but one obtained identical results, the one who did not obtained the voltage but not the current and on my site I explain the issue of a high work function cathode (poisoned) of old valves.

In response to the constant barrage of criticism from Sarkey of my failure to deliver on time, I simply say I was optimistic and believed people when they told me delivery dates, if it is a crime to believe what professional scientists tell you then I am a repeat offender.

So work is proceeding and I could give a date now but that would seem, given the hostile reaction to me getting such wrong, not a good idea. To those that choose to call me a fool I can only say it is silly to call me such when so many are working with me and so many have now replicated my work, how many times do you want to keep saying it is an error or we do not know what we are doing. Let the proof be the finished device and please desist in the name calling, and if I am also guilty of losing my cool in reaction to taunts I apologize.

I will post again soon.

At Doublehelix, no it is not vibration, nor PV, nor DT, nor Radioactivity, nor RF, it plots exactly as predicted and every thing that could be done to test for external effects has been carried out and repeatedly so. All ways of proving the current is generated internally were carried out and have 100% correlation with the theory and the observed effect.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on February 02, 2013, 03:40:33 AM
Philip:

What's not believable in my opinion is that "professional scientists" would give you delivery dates that they fail to meet over and over and over.  Are we supposed to believe that you are caught in some sort of revolving door where other people are always failing and you are "just there?"  I don't believe it myself.

When I read between the lines you are telling us that you will not deliver anything by the end of February like you promised you would.  Of course we nerver get details about what concrete tasks are not being delivered and by what organizations or individuals.  It's all "hush hush."

What is the real truth about you, the real deal?  I suspect that we will never know.

MileHigh
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on February 02, 2013, 03:42:15 AM
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).  He's just a Wikipedia regurgitator.  A "company liner" as I like to call them.  Great at looking at/memorising stuff whilst simultaneously self-congratulating mind you.  Really excellent at that particularly uninteresting party trick.

Anyway, great to hear an update at least on your rightful obliviousness to the odd muppet.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: markdansie on February 02, 2013, 05:06:46 AM
Dear MileHigh


"What is the real truth about you, the real deal?  I suspect that we will never know."


I think we all know, however I have decided to leave Philip alone, anyone who believes any of this deserves what they get.


Kind Regards
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 02, 2013, 05:39:58 AM
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. 
Quote
He's just a Wikipedia regurgitator.
Not really, while the Halting Problem is described on Wikipedia my code doesn't come from there.
Quote
Great at looking at/memorising stuff
You realize that's almost a direct proxy for saying I'm intelligent right?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: The Boss on February 02, 2013, 06:30:11 AM

 anyone who believes any of this deserves what they get.


Mark,
 
...a quick divergence from this subject. What was your take on Ainslie ?
 
Thanks,
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on February 02, 2013, 06:31:09 AM
Dear MileHigh,

I am not sure what you are asking. Expand if you care too.

Do you want me to whisper the names of the 2 scientists that gave me dates that did not materialise during the months of March to August 2012? What would you do with that information, call them liars or incompetent?

Here are a few realities for you to chew on, in just one year we are now ready  to make things few people in the World know how to, we learned by virtue of the efforts of 2 very capable and generous Australian scientists who are experts in their fields, they genuinely thought it could be done in a few easy steps and then they found that it could not, but this was understandable as they had never tried to make things so small. Then I consulted a few other experts in nano-fabrication and I found that there was nobody that actually knew how to do it and that it was all so cutting edge that an estimate was really just a guess. I passed on those guesses and even based a lot of my life around them. Then we tried to get it done in Stanford from October to Decdmber but alas by the time we resolved all the unknowns, the materials, the etching, the depositions, the annealing and so forth, we ran out of time to do it with precision, so we decided that we would have a Christmas break and then start again in the New Year.

So what part of this is unbelievable to you? or are you simply calling me a liar? 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. It is illogical to expect me to tell you how long the near impossible is going to take, 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.

Now I post here for no reason other than to be friendly to a community, check back through all my posts and tell me where I ask for a penny, of course you all can form opinions but if you want to call me a liar at least use your real names and post the evidence, otherwise why make comments on a forum about a person based upon your own prejudices?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on February 02, 2013, 06:59:50 AM
Philip:

I can go onto Google and YouTube and probably find more than 100 zero-content web sites and inane video clips promising nonsensical free energy propositions.  They either want to get you to invest, or buy "master licenses," or send in money for the plans.  None of them can show working devices.  I see a strong resemblance.

The only way you are going to convince me is with a working device.  Then when I read your alleged specs of 1000 amps per square centimeter I roll my eyes.  You endorsed that ridiculous toaster oven experiment.  You can't discuss the nature of the alleged electrical output of the device using the proper terminology.  You have never quoted any experimental data where you discuss the ambient heat allegedly absorbed by the device and the temperature drop of the thermal mass you were dealing with, the measured electrical energy output, etc.  Your web site is emotionally charged and on the defensive.  You keep on missing deadlines and if you were working with real people in the real word then what you are alleging would not be happening.

If you were real your storyline and how you release information and present your proposition and a myriad of other things would all be completely different.

That's my thought process about you.  Nothing adds up.

MileHigh
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: markdansie on February 02, 2013, 12:46:12 PM
Regarding Ainslie (off topic) I am still reviewing some of her papers with a scientist friend of mine. We have not completed that yet , but what I find will not be made public as I have to respect the her wishes under the conditions they given to me.
Up until now, pre review, I have not seen anything that I would consider anymore ground breaking than the LENR claims out there. I would like to see how such technologies can be put into any practical applications.
Kind Regards
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on February 02, 2013, 12:59:20 PM
I´m Happy to see Philip is well and make again post here.

The quenco device will be in a soon week, we dont need the date, we just need the device well done!.

Everything have a time, that we can not accelerate.

The Eternal God guide Us !
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 02, 2013, 04:26:33 PM
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.

[quote It is illogical to expect me to tell you how long the near impossible is going to take[/quote]
What's illogical is to call anything "near impossible".  You can not be close to impossible any more than you can be close to infinity.

Quote
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on February 03, 2013, 05:27:52 AM

Great to see @Philip back on track!


I think nobody here really believed that @Philip is bad project manager.
On the contrary, he managed this whole affair very well so far and at the end of the day, week, month, year, decade - whatever,
it's the result that counts, the benefit for mankind.


The holy almighty God alone knows what evil force motivated @'sarkey' to misbehave in such appalling way,
but let's just pray for his eternal soul and be greatful that he can't suppress the development of the human species anymore.


Truth, patience, progress, peace.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on February 04, 2013, 02:48:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on February 04, 2013, 05:05:05 AM
     I've been away couple weeks but I see things are amping up.   Knowing most of the players here possibly a little better than Philip it appears they all are making posts based on their personal agendas.   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.  Others I know would stand to lose out on some business of their own making when Quenco goes mainstream.   And others would seem to have Aspergers syndrome or some psychological quirk of a very contrary nature.   But I would personally stand by my judgement of Philip any day and I just spent a couple days with the vice president of a company that anyone would recognize and told him about Philip and Quenco.   This is not a high tech company that could directly build or use Quenco but my point is I believe in Quenco enough to discuss it with such a person.
    We all have our opinions here and most express them openly behind their curtain of anonymity.   I think anyone reading this thread with reasonable people skills can see behind the veils of some of the players.    I see a only a few straight shooters here and I believe Philip is one of them.   Yes 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....
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 04, 2013, 05:27:48 AM
I am very happy you feel that way.
It's simply the truth.

"A review of the recent research reveals that WMC and g are indeed highly related, but not identical." - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14643371
I'm still waiting for you to explain how you think you code around the halting problem.  Perhaps it's just me but you get really vague on that point.  I think you're probably blowing smoke here.
Quote from: e2matrix
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".

I confess that this place as been something other than helpful in terms of determining why this might not be the case.  Everyone's argument   can be summed up in one sentence: "The results are correct and Philips interpretation is correct so anything that contradicts this must be false" - Why even bother thinking if that's your POV?
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on February 04, 2013, 10:52:32 AM
Hear, hear. It will still take a few years for the Quenco chip to go from the mud hut stage to the super multistory skyscrapers that will change the world big time.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on February 04, 2013, 08:52:03 PM
Yes, there are many people who believe in Philip and Quenco development, for use in the development of human consciousness, the need for harmony with nature, harmony with the true values ​​of the man who brought us the authentic happiness.


No evil force, can stop a development when the time have arrive !


The Eternal God bless us !
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on February 08, 2013, 03:27:42 PM
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).
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Groundloop on February 08, 2013, 03:37:02 PM
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).

Hi Philip,

Attached is a document that you may find interesting.

GL.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: stprue on February 08, 2013, 03:46:45 PM
Hello GL,

Any luck with the APM.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on February 08, 2013, 03:49:49 PM
@Groundloop,


I have in fact some years ago had lengthy discussion with Prof Fu and he sent me a copy of his video.


We have not communicated for some time as our solutions to the problems diverged, however I have mentioned that his work was an important step on the way to the quenco, if for no other reason it gave me an insight as to how people will attack people who question 2LOT rather than doing the experiments for themselves. Prof Fu has never had anyone bother to replicate his work, that is evidence to me that we have not really progressed much from the days of Galileo or Darwin, science should question vigorously, that is the way we filter the value of ideas, but it should not ignore or attack them to the extent that it becomes personal.


He was attacked by a fellow Chinese physicist who made a hostile and silly assessment of Fu's work that was not challenged by his peers, there is no balance, the critics attack but are never themselves criticised.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Groundloop on February 08, 2013, 04:22:03 PM
Hello GL,

Any luck with the APM.

Hi Stprue,

I have not yet soldered the APM board. It will be done some day for sure, but I do not think I will find
time to test the board until my summer vacation. But I did solder 100 IR LEDs to a board. Tested the
board in total darkness. (Room without windows.) I connected a voltmeter to the IR LED board and
did switch on a IR light in the dark room. I did detect a voltage output from the board every time I
switched on the IR light, and zero volt from the board when I switched off the IR light. This proves to me
that it is possible to make a IR solar panel that can covert heat directly to electricity! Did you know that
a 1x1 meter panel of black painted aluminum will radiate approx. 450 Watt of IR energy all the time. So if
you attach a IR panel to one side of that plate then you can collect the IR light (at the correct wavelength),
and you can convert ambient heat directly to energy?

GL.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: stprue on February 08, 2013, 04:36:27 PM
Deleted, I understand now.

Very cool.  Have you tested the theory?

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Groundloop on February 08, 2013, 04:47:40 PM
Deleted, I understand now.

Very cool.  Have you tested the theory?

Stprue,

I'm not sure if you ask me since you did not address your post?

If you did, yes I have tested that it is possible to convert IR light (heat) directly to electricity.
And, no, I have not built a IR receiver substrate because I do not have the money to do that.

GL.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: stprue on February 08, 2013, 04:50:54 PM
@GL,

Yes I was addressing you for the previous post.  I like the theory.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Groundloop on February 08, 2013, 05:04:12 PM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: conradelektro on February 08, 2013, 10:41:05 PM
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 is a way to harvest IR and all other light frequencies, but it is not ready yet:

http://spie.org/x51851.xml

Greetings, Conrad

Citation from the article:

Antenna-coupled diode solar cells, also called rectenna solar cells, work on an entirely different principle, much like a crystal radio receiver but for light. Incoming solar radiation (electromagnetic waves) is received by sub-micron-size antennas, which convert it to ultra-high-frequency alternating current (AC). This current passes through a nanometer-scale, ultra-high-frequency diode, which converts the AC to direct current (DC) and provides usable power (see Figure 1 (http://spie.org/x51851.xml#fig1)). A solar cell would incorporate a large array of millions of these elements in tandem deposited onto a glass or plastic substrate. Fabrication costs can be low, with devices processed cheaply in a roll-to-roll process.

Developing an efficient rectenna solar-cell technology is a major undertaking. A key challenge, providing a diode that can convert the petahertz frequencies of visible light to DC and couple efficiently to antennas, cannot be met by conventional technologies. We presented a new device that may provide the solution, the geometric diode. Specifically, we demonstrated a geometric diode that works in converting IR light.


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on February 09, 2013, 02:09:08 AM

I posted this on the quentron website under the $10 experiment page.


ISOTHERMAL OVENS
There is a point that needs to be discussed as some people with a poor understanding of physics (joshs at the moletrap) seem to think that there is a flaw to the experiment, simply put they argue that if the isothermal environment (the oven) in which the pentode valve is immersed requires a kW to obtain 500C then the uW of output from the device under test does not demonstrate a violation of the 2LOT. This is of course not so and it demonstrates a lack of his knowledge of physics, I shall patiently try to explain yet again why, maybe by posting it here he can stop his name calling rants and listen.


The statement by Kelvin was about a device being in a single reservoir of heat, now how we come to have that single reservoir of heat at 500C when ambient is 20C clearly requires the use of a heater and heaters need power, but if we imagine the experiment was done at noon on the surface of Mercury the ambient temperature would be high enough to cause the pentode to produce an output, and we would have the load at the same temperature, so joshs would be happy, or we would hope so.


However when we talk of using a laboratory oven or bespoke hot environment he objects as he talks of the kW required to heat the oven but if we simply ignore the oven power requirement or say it is just to give us a Mercury environment, then we can see that the pentode is still in an isothermal single heat reservoir, and so if it produces an output it violates the 2LOT.


One other reason he has expressed, when pressed about his logic, is that there is a 500C temperature difference from the Pentode in the oven to the load and multimeter that are at room temperature. He thinks somehow that this is a delta T of 500C that can be plugged in to the Carnot equation, the simple fact is that the Pentode is terminated in the isothermal oven to a hot termination block and so there is no temperature gradient across the Pentode or to its output pins, the temperature gradient of course exists from the hot terminal block inside the oven to the cold terminal block outside, but so what? we all know that if you use identical wires that go from a cold terminal block then into a hot oven where they are terminated at a hot terminal block, and then shorted by a wire of any material there will be no emf created. This is after all simple thermocouple theory, and even if we had a 10C temperature difference across the hot block terminals common thermocouples have only uV per degree outputs, so a 10C difference across the terminals at the hot block could only account for a fraction of a mV, now as we get almost a Volt from the device under test it should be obvious that it is not as a consequence of any delta T and thermocouple effect.


I hope the above helps joshs and others with their basic understanding of the physics, I must admit that I find it hard to explain to joshs such simple concepts for I cannot fathom how he fails to grasp such a simple concept as thermocouple theory. I will report back if he still does not understand and try to explain this in a simper way or perhaps with a few simple diagrams.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on February 10, 2013, 12:48:43 AM

Hi All,

As the launch of Quenco is now fast approaching I have taken down the sebithenco and $10 experiment.


I have replaced it with a note that we will invite some people to witness the Quenco in operation at Palo Alto.


There will be no further posting here or on the Quentron website until March 10.


Take care
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on February 10, 2013, 04:41:03 PM
Philip:

Quote
There will be no further posting here or on the Quentron website until March 10.

As expected, you are not going to make your new new ... new new deadline for the end of February 2013.  It's amazing how you deal with people that are supposed to provide you with goods or services and they simply never deliver the goods for you.  Presumably they are professional people (if they actually exist) that would either refuse to take on a task if it is not realistic and they can't deliver, or, they would take on a task and deliver.  They might be late perhaps once, but they certainly would not be late 20 times in a row.

Like I said to you in my posting that you never replied to, even though you tried to engage with me for starters, you are NOT REAL.  Every fiber of my being is telling me that there are some serious serious problems with you.  Your roller-coaster web site is just one of the big clues.

We know ahead of time already Phil.  "People are going to let you down" on March 10th, or perhaps you will have problems again sourcing materials.  At the end of December you told us it was just the delayed delivery of some materials that were delaying you, but you never had any follow-up comments about that issue to the best of my recollection.

How long with this merry-go-round continue?  Who knows the answer to that question but what a bizarre spectacle this whole thing is.

MileHigh
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: steeltpu on February 12, 2013, 05:27:45 PM
it's amazing how you deal with people milehigh.   you must have a personality issue like a need to always be right.   you probably go around looking for what you think are good bets.   then do all you can to insure you will be right so you can save all the poor believers or so you think they are stupid people who believe?   it gets tiring seeing your rants about time expectations.   are you so dumb you can't understand that none of this has ever been done before?   why do you think everything will happen exactly as estimated?   why do you lie about how often the estimates were not met when they are only a few times and only estimates based on a lot of outside circumstances beyond philip's control? 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on February 12, 2013, 10:49:47 PM
Steeltpu:

I am not the issue here, Quentron is the issue.   Nor am I not lying about how many times the delivery estimates were not met based on what I have read here.  I am just giving you the truth as I see it.  Beyond that if I have ever saved an investor from squandering their money then I am proud of that fact.

MileHigh
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on February 13, 2013, 07:26:17 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on February 13, 2013, 07:57:28 AM
I must say that put a big smile on my face  ;D .
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: tagor on February 13, 2013, 08:10:47 AM
I must say that put a big smile on my face  ;D .

yes it is very very nice !
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mrsean2k on February 13, 2013, 09:55:35 AM
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.


Photoshopped!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on February 13, 2013, 10:12:23 AM
Unfortunately, even this picture does not prove anything. It could be anything. The most concerning point I have stressed here from the beginning is: if PJH does not have yet a working prototype (if the picture is genuine, they are still stuck on the wafer substrate in the lab), how could he state that his device has amazing performance in converting heat to current?

PJH please remember: don't count your chickens before they're hatched
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mrsean2k on February 13, 2013, 10:43:52 AM
For the absence of doubt, I was taking the piss (and not out of Phil).


Perfectly happy to accept that's a photo of his work in progress.


ETA: and that it looks as if it could be very very difficult to estimate when it's manufactured to spec.



Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on February 13, 2013, 10:54:33 AM
Just saw the added comment from mrsean2k, but since I went to the trouble to screenshot the properties of the jpeg that was sent to me I may as well post it in case other less genuine than mrsean2k start a smear campaign


Feed in the lat / long and see where you get, and no I am not so clever as to change the properties, it took me a few minutes to remember how to do a screenshot.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on February 13, 2013, 10:57:22 AM
Nine little tadpoles fertilising the future.

Or nine lights shining the path to tomorrow.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on February 13, 2013, 04:56:14 PM
Congratulations friend Philip,

But this can not convince someone who does not want to believe, because their desire is not the hope of your success. The reasons only justify the wishes of the people.

We'll wish you Philip, and everyone in this forum, the greatest success.

For a humanity genuinely happy (sharing is happiness), free of modern slavery of selfishness and consumerism.

The Eternal God Guide Us!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on February 13, 2013, 08:25:51 PM
Hi Philip,  Don't worry too much about the 'negistors' here (my new word for trolls, negative drivelers and those using smear tactics).   But thanks for sharing the photo.   That's very exciting to see!


Milehigh,  I don't believe Philip has ever asked for money or investors.  The way I understand it is that once the technology is shown and proven than those who signed up to buy a license to manufacture it will pay for their license.  No investors needed.   And I bet those who are putting out the million or more for a license will exercise due diligence in verifying this is a valid energy producing device.   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: AnnieJ on February 15, 2013, 07:00:18 PM
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.

Now I’m in a close contact with NRGLab management team that has endorsed my idea to create the Research Council Foundation that will unite scientists-electricians from all over the world, interested in this unique technology development. I’m not a scientist myself but can act as the organizer on a voluntary basis. If you have any questions, feel free to email me: annie65j[at]gmail[dot]com
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on February 16, 2013, 11:21:05 AM
From Quentron Website:

"The batches under production, if they perform as predicted, will have an output of 1A/cm2 at room temperature"

The problem is right there.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 17, 2013, 11:04:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: bugler on February 18, 2013, 07:29:49 PM
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.


On the other hand a 1-message member is a highly suspicious thing.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on February 23, 2013, 09:37:24 PM
Hi everybody.


There is some good news, lanch day will be march 30 in San Francisco.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on February 23, 2013, 10:29:01 PM
Great news! So the fabrication and testing were successful? Have you all received your invitations? I hope there will be a public demo or press conference soon after that day.



Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bayani47 on February 24, 2013, 04:21:15 AM
Hey Guys,

Just to let you know guys that there's a short presentation of this (similar?) invention with contact information at

http://www.newbyronenergy.com/UserData/initial%20presentation%20v1.1.ppsx

found at http://byronnewenergy.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

I'm not sure whether PHJ is in collaboration with Solihin Millin. According to this guy, this technology is on manufacturing / on sale, already? Guys be aware and cautious whenever someone is licensing / selling a technology that doesn't show proof of concept, working prototype, third parties test, validation, etc.

Also, guys don't hold your breath for too long waiting for any exotic free energy / overunity inventions to materialize as they take quite a while (a year minimum) to mature, validate, and be available to the public.

 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on February 24, 2013, 08:25:07 AM
Hi All,


More photos of quencos under construction at Stanford this past week have been posted on


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.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: conradelektro on February 24, 2013, 12:04:59 PM
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 Hardcastle:

What I do not like is that you make statements before having any measurement results. As I understand, "the first batch" is not finished yet.

So, how do you know any properties of this thing? How can you claim anything before ever having laid your hands on a single device?

The only valid statement you are able to make is the following: I hope that the device will do such and such.

You never had a single device and you spoke of wonderful results and a wonderful power output. This is the problem. For that reason it is not a good idea to believe anything you say or write.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on February 24, 2013, 12:39:24 PM
@Conrad,


You believe what you want to believe, what we do are experiments and theoretical physics. We are 100% confident in our results to date, not all of which are public. You are right about one thing, we have not yet claimed to have a commercial device that we can hand out, but we are confident we will in March.


We have seen the quenco effect and we have done all the research we need to estimate the power conversion rates. 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.


The transistor was predicted, as was the FET, as was the esaki diode, and if you had any knowledge and common sense you would have followed the logic from the sebby experiments. I get really irritated by people that do not enter the scientific debate but rather attack the person. Do you really think we would spend years and about a million dollars of effort to chase an untested idea?


I post here as I choose to do so for the information of the scientific community that resides here. If you had looked at my site you would know I have changed it many times but included lots of theory discussion, invited debates and so on, your problem is that you apparently need to see all advances in science before you can believe in the honesty of the scientists telling you about the research.


How many times do we hear about future breakthrough that are still in development????


Quenco is proved as far as power density because it was preceded by Esaki and by Sebithenco, the maths has been done, the maths has been double checked, the Quenco films are known thicknesses and the tunnel current at 300K is a known quantity, and there is no room for argument on that point. The asymmetry of the Quenco has been assessed at 10 time less than it might be so as to be conservative, consequently much though you might want to say we are guilty of wishful thinking when we say 1,000A or 10,000A per cm2, we are not.


So let's, on your say so, call all researchers liars and fools as they pursue outcomes before having them in hand.


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.


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?


Phil
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: conradelektro on February 24, 2013, 01:02:26 PM
@Philip Hardcastle:

You say: "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 do not need advisors to understand the difference between "fact" and "hope". Well, I allow you to use the terms "expectation" or "confidence in an outcome" instead of the more understandable term "hope".

I have nothing against "hope", but I advise everybody (without having advisors) to be very clear when stating "hopes". "Hopes" are not "established facts".

But you, Mr. Hardcastle, with all your advisors, do not make clear what is fact and what is hope. You always speak in a muddle and with double meaning.

You are allowed to do what ever you want, but you have to bear the consequences of double talk.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on February 24, 2013, 02:22:38 PM
Friend Philip,

Dont waste time with the negistor people, they are very negative people, they have other intentions, not the search for solutions to the welfare of mankind.

They are looking for is only their own benefit. They have other agendas.

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on February 24, 2013, 07:47:09 PM
No Elisha, you are the person that we should not be listening to.

Conradelectro made some perfectly valid points and they have not been successfully rebutted by Philip.  This is not comparable to developing a new semiconductor technology to make higher-density memory chips, it's about allegedly overturning one of the laws of thermodynamics.

Your allegations that Conradelectro has other intentions or a sinister agenda are garbage, they are not true.  Conrad is justifiably concerned that this may never work just like I share the same concerns.  For example, if you quote the alleged current output of the device without quoting the corresponding voltage you are quoting meaningless junk data.

The only agenda that myself and Conrad have is to discover the truth.  You, on the other hand, seem to want to suppress any possibility of the truth being debated.  You want to bias the discussion towards making others believe that the outcome of this affair will be successful without allowing a reasoned debate.  Shame on you.  You think you are a "good guy" but in fact your behaviour is the behaviour of a bad guy.

Quote
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.

Really?  Take a look here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/automobiles/after-a-charging-system-test-a-debate-erupts-online.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/automobiles/after-a-charging-system-test-a-debate-erupts-online.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

http://green.autoblog.com/2013/02/19/new-york-times-admits-tesla-model-s-writer-didnt-use-go/ (http://green.autoblog.com/2013/02/19/new-york-times-admits-tesla-model-s-writer-didnt-use-go/)

Do you know what you are supposed to see when you look at those two links?  You are supposed to see that there is a healthy debate with BOTH sides of the issue being covered.

The NY Times did NOT intentionally publish a false article and they did NOT intentionally want to discredit Tesla Motors.

So where does that leave you Elisha?

Quote
Do not waste your time with these people, do not answer, ignore them is the best.

Your comment above is junk.  It's time for you to START THINKING, and put your brain in gear.

MileHigh
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mrsean2k on February 24, 2013, 09:59:25 PM
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?


Ta


S
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on February 24, 2013, 10:34:04 PM
Philippe Hardcastle,


my dear friend, don't let those negatrists cloud you positive way of thoughts. There is no need for a requirement of tests and facts. Remember they can ask what they want, and you are free to ignore them. Those silly questions they ask of you are the poisoned stings of the clown-snakes with their not very well hidden agendas. Keep the faith and the faith will keep you on track. Jehova shall guide your soul and make the Quency* a success.




(*Sounds better IMO, maybe you should adopt this name. Quenco (with the 'o' at the end) rhymes with homo, weirdo and negro, which can induce bad thoughts)


May I ask you the following:
Flights from here to SanFfrancisco are pretty expensive, so I have one question you may could answer me regarding the conference in SF:
How many people have been invited yet?
Is it possible to buy a ticket for the conference?


Thanks and God bless you(again),
Orban
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on February 25, 2013, 12:58:31 AM
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.

But the following steps in the third party testing could be public information.

We have afraid that Philip disclosure too much confidential information.


The Eternal God, Guide Us.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 25, 2013, 06:07:55 AM
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.

There's a huge 10,000 lb irony elephant in the room because when theory (oh say information theory) stomps all over your interpretation of your results.  All of a sudden "physical results" mean EVERYTHING so information theory - which has far fewer assumptions than even Physics must be wrong.  However when someone says  "uh well you haven't yet been able to actually produce this thing" all of a sudden theory means EVERYTHING so your failure after failure after failure after failure after failure must be wrong.

Quote
and if you had any knowledge and common sense you would have followed the logic from the sebby experiments
Appeal to popularity or anonymous authority.  Did anyone ever teach you how to construct an argument?
Quote
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.
Quote
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.

Quote
included lots of theory discussion, invited debates
Your 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.

Quote
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.
Quote
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

Science, often advances by smaller steps.  A principle is proposed, a validating experiment is suggested the experiment gets funding - often this is a small scale experiment because as the OP suggests pouring large amounts of money into a principle without any evidence is foolish.  If the experiment is successful attempts to scale the experiment up are done.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on February 25, 2013, 04:12:12 PM
@mrsean2k,


The photo from a few days ago was step 18 of 24.


Obviously we have progressed since then.


I am not going to make any public statements until we have a certified report of testing, I am not going to leave any doubt as to the authenticity of the device, this is too important.


As Elisha pointed out we will keep some details of materials and processes confidential until the release of a public paper.


It is my plan to make a public statement on or about 10 March.


Phil
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on February 25, 2013, 07:46:53 PM
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. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on February 26, 2013, 01:27:14 AM
Yes the first application of quenco, will be the cellular battery.

A universal Quenco module, that you can dress in the shape of any battery would be great. So there is only one universal module Quenco, but is used in all smartphones.

What would happen immediately is that all processors in phones, would run at full speed, the cell phone amateurs would overclock every phone. The idea is to balance processor warming and cooling Quenco. This can be improved up to 2X the power of existing cellular computing.

The next step is to produce on the same substrate Quenco and the processor, so it optimizes the temperature gradient between processor and Quenco. This could eliminate completely the difference between a laptop processor and a processor of a cell phone, we would have super powerful phones, 10X what we have today. Real applications as a true voice assistant will be on a cell phone.

And for the desktop or laptop, means that the computing power to have a ibm Wattson in the house or office.

Sure, Quenco will allow a leap in computer technology.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 26, 2013, 02:03:35 AM
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.

Quote
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.

It's also worth noting that even if Philip's machine does somehow accomplish the sorting.  Complexity theory says it can't.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on February 26, 2013, 06:20:04 AM
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.

Hi e2matrix,

An interesting announcement from Fuji Films.  I think you are spot on about the cell phones! 

"Fujifilm has used the Nanotech 2013 conference in Tokyo to demonstrate some progress with the creation of a new thermoelectric conversion material. Such a material can convert temperature differences directly into electricity, which can then be stored or used immediately to power or charge some device." 

Sounds familiar, eh?  lol
 
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-02-25/japan-matrix-now-reality-humans-are-used-living-batteries (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-02-25/japan-matrix-now-reality-humans-are-used-living-batteries)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on February 26, 2013, 06:34:08 AM
Quote
Sounds familiar, eh?  lol

No Bruce, you are wrong.  You may as well be a million miles off.

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on February 26, 2013, 06:31:51 PM
Hi Bruce ,    LOL  - Yes as a Matrix movie fan I got a laugh out of that article and with their pics from the movie of the 'Pods' it was interesting to see people still reference the Matrix movie.   I still see Blu-Ray ads and  DVD ads with clips from the Matrix movie in current titles so I assume it's a classic in a number of respects.   I wonder how similar their tech is to Quenco.   It doesn't appear they are getting nearly as much power as Quenco will have but I think they are on the right track. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 27, 2013, 12:34:48 AM
Sounds familiar, eh?
It should, it's a thermocouple.  What does that have to do with thermionc generation which breaks 2LOT?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on February 27, 2013, 02:49:23 AM
No Bruce, you are wrong.  You may as well be a million miles off.

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.   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 27, 2013, 03:19:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bruce_TPU on February 27, 2013, 05:39:56 PM
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)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 28, 2013, 02:56:04 PM
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.

Seriously folks, if you take away all of your backbiting, wishful thinking, comparisons of entirely unrelated technologies.  This thread would be a ghost town. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on February 28, 2013, 03:21:17 PM
Allah's will

Please don't confuse "The Eternal God" with the name of some religion god.  The religions are just excuse to don't do "Love your neighbor as you love yourself".

The religions are just excuses, inventions in the minds of people, rituals for self excuse for not doing their work "Love your neighbor as you love yourself", people prefer the easy way to worship a ghost or do a ritual and assign blame for their selfishness at the enemy of her god, the devil etc, instead of assuming their responsibilities.

The Eternal God is "the Desire to bestow without receiving anything in return", nothing, no money, no honor, no power, is not a imagination or ghost in your mind.

The way of quenco Work was very well explain by The Inventor Philip.   I dont make the wheel I use it.

Happy day.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 28, 2013, 04:34:04 PM
Please don't confuse "The Eternal God" with the name of some religion god.
Please don't confuse your distinction with a difference.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on February 28, 2013, 05:20:38 PM
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."
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 28, 2013, 08:51:01 PM
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.

Kind of interesting that you're rallying against a question to which the poster stated there was a CLEAR answer.  Answering it should be trivial.  It's not because Philip has given really nothing useful when explaining why he thinks this breaks 2LOT or somehow gets around information theory or somehow violated complexity theory.  He may have given a lot of other information but all of it, is utterly irrelevant if it doesn't explicate that point.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: murmel on March 01, 2013, 01:42:54 AM
Philip
When the first "batch" of this device is ready for sale, can you give us in this group (overunity) first ability to buy this device ? :-)...need about 20v... 3Amp

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 01, 2013, 07:54:30 AM
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).
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on March 02, 2013, 06:30:06 AM
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. 

So what law of thermodynamics do you think this violates? and why?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on March 02, 2013, 03:08:45 PM
Hi All,


Happy to say that the wait is almost over, no longer years, nor months, or even weeks, now just days, in fact I am hoping less than 2.


Just days for the first testable devices from batch 1, batch 2 will follow in a few weeks (batch 1 is to verify all the processes can be done, batch 2 is to be optimised for performance). The conference in San Francisco will be the first time the devices will be demonstrated to non scientists, but prior to that we want to compile evidence beyond question of the 2nd law violation. We plan to make in Europe a public disclosure (the full results of independent tests), this will be about 2 weeks after the conference in the USA. This delay is unfortunate but we have a number of licencees who are entitled to see the device working in their hands before it goes public.


In relation to the posts on this thread, thanks for the continuing moral support.


The endless talk on this thread about complexity theory and information theory as proof of the 2nd Law is silly, the fact is that the 2nd law has never been mathematically proved, the 2nd Law's very acceptance is based completely and solely on observation that there has been no accepted violation, of course the sebby violated the 2nd but it has yet to reach critical acceptance (I think we have now 8 physicists / engineers who are 100% convinced - just a few million to go to get critical mass acceptance).


Using the lack of an agreed violation as proof of a theory is the most stupid position science has ever taken as it simply created an intellectual barrier to research and invention, anyone that dared to disagree with the prejudicial position of faith in the 2nd law has been called a fool, and what did it gain the negistors and skeptics? 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.


Obviously the SF conference will shatter the confidence of the negistors and that will leave some of the real scientists the opportunity to become part of this energy revolution without having to fear the nasty jibes of people like.......... , nor the potential loss of tenure at their university.


So why have I been active with announcements prior to finishing my work? because we really do not have much time to waste and negistors and skeptics calling me names ahead of the conference gets other people to at least pay attention, and we need attention from as many as possible so that we can get busy on solving the global energy crisis that is leading to an environmental catastrophe.


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.


Yours Truly
Last Laugh Phil
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on March 02, 2013, 04:00:38 PM
Hi Friend Philip

We are all very glued to the computer, waiting for the results of the first Quenco.

Patience and serenity, all produced in the historical moment that should occur, you have to enjoy these moments of tense calm, walking through the park and sharing with family and friends a sunset. How long time you do not see as the sun sets?, And see a sunrise is also very impressive. The dawn of a new society.

We also highly recommend see short videos of Peter Joseph, which presents very well the problems of this society, and he is very close to clarify that the only solution is the use of a proper educational model, a model based on real human values, founded in science and what we learn from history. http://www.cultureindecline.com/ (http://www.cultureindecline.com/)

Philip, you've done much of the work necessary to have a large audience at launch of Quenco. I assure you, that's the least of your worries, many here have time following the inventions of alternative energy to oil, some even have been cheated by our extreme positivism (I was cheated by r-charge.net), so these errors we have been taught to be positive but not extremist, to have hope, but not be blind to check and not believe in words only. As I did the valve experiment and it worked (i´m electronic engineer and I know how to take measures), I think that Quenco will work  as you predict, so expect lab results to make a big media campaign, press , radio, internet. As you have indicated, our reputation is at stake if we anticipate the results. The transmission of information on the Internet is overwhelmingly fast, that ensures that you will have a large audience for the launch day.

More challenging, is coordinate all your licencees, ensure they meet your desire to bring solutions to the public as soon as possible. And the hardest part, not succumb to the corruption of power itself. Your real problem is who do you surround yourself?  This will mark your decisions.

The Eternal God, Guide You !
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on March 02, 2013, 04:29:36 PM
The endless talk on this thread about complexity theory and information theory as proof of the 2nd Law is silly
First, 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.
Quote
the fact is that the 2nd law has never been mathematically proved
Your opinion here isn't worth much.  You are not qualified to pontificate on either subject. 
Quote
, the 2nd Law's very acceptance is based completely and solely on observation
Not 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".

Stick to talking about something you know more than a high-schooler about.  Which apparently isn't math (or logic).

I've laid out my argument, if you wish to refute please do so.  Just saying I'm wrong or pretending I'm not worth your time (but clearly I am) isn't answering the rather glaring question.

Quote
(I think we have now 8 physicists / engineers who are 100% convinced
Is 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?


Quote
and what did it gain the negistors and skeptics?
You're going to adopt that term?  Seriously?
Quote
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.
Quote
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?

Also, aren't you making a liar out of yourself by posting while I am here and unmoderated?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on March 02, 2013, 08:26:08 PM
@Phil:  Nice one, great to hear everything is going to plan.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on March 02, 2013, 08:54:14 PM
Can't wait for batch one and two.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on March 03, 2013, 12:50:15 AM
Dear Friend Phil,
why can't you wait a few days and take your measurements before celebrating your victory?
After your astonishingly long and well documented history of failures, shouldn't you be a little more humble and cautious?
What makes you think that this time will be any different?


May the Force be with you,
Robut
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on March 03, 2013, 02:04:03 AM
Dear Friend? Orbut,


Let me preface my reply by acknowledgement that it is blowing my own trumpet, but clearly to refute your smear I need someone to talk from a position of knowledge.


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????????????????????????????????


I will also just this once directly acknowledge the childish comments of Sarky, I skimmed by the constant tirade of his mindless comments that I must be wrong because of it being in contradiction to information theory and later complexity theory, then when I challenge that position he now claims he never said information theory or complexity theory proved impossible a violation of the 2nd, but rather that it showed that some proposed ideas were unworkable, I really do not care for what others failed to do or for what others fail to understand.


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, now I have made complete devices (well by tomorrow) that will allow room temperature conversion instead of the Sebby 500C.


All the stupid jibes and arguments put forward at this point in time do nothing to change the reality of 13 years of work.


My next post here will be the single word "Success"
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on March 03, 2013, 02:27:40 AM

Dear Phil,
thank you for taking the time answering my post.
Quote
I also have had partial quenco films made and saw via instruments the quenco effect as predicted
That's great and if true, congratulations and thank you.(if by 'quenco effect' you mean something other than perpetual shifting announcement dates)
Have your results been independently confirmed? Why didn't you publish them on your website?


I hope we will see your next post soon.


I wish you well and may Xenu enlighten your soul,
Turob
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on March 03, 2013, 04:59:53 AM
Whilst you and others have done what????????????????????????????????
Realized that you're probably not correct.
Quote
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.
My guess is simply you can't because you don't understand either information theory OR complexity theory and having to ask me about such things is a crippling blow to your enormously massive ego.
Quote
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.
Quote
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 03, 2013, 02:19:30 PM
i await with suspense your confirmation phil as you are the 'rossi' of the 2nd law busters i.e. taking this into the spotlight of the world stage.a whole new level.2nd law violations are completely different ballgame to l.e.n.r.a claim of a 2nd law violation is either clearcut n dry evidence or nothing.nothing in between. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 03, 2013, 02:37:21 PM
@sarkeizen.a thermometer heats up on tinfoil by a small amount,a few degrees kelvin at best,not practical enuough for throwing money at it however it is spontaneous and thus smashes the law that says you cant concentrate random heat without xtra energy.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on March 03, 2013, 08:43:16 PM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 03, 2013, 10:46:24 PM
yes indeed sarkeizen.spontaneous entropy reduction in a closed system.i used the word 'concentrate'to help non-scientists on the forum understand.thers a growing number of physicists,scientists out there questioning the validity of 2LOT.i welcome debates with skeptics because it re-enforces my own convictions.if phils device works all future debates about the 2nd law will be settled in one stroke if the power output is big enough 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on March 04, 2013, 03:24:52 AM
yes indeed sarkeizen.spontaneous entropy reduction in a closed system
Please explain the mechanism.
Quote
i used the word 'concentrate'to
explain something poorly?
Quote
thers a growing number of physicists,scientists out there questioning the validity of 2LOT.
Which, you realize is the metric of morons right?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 04, 2013, 09:58:17 AM
@sarkeizen.only a moron would complain about the word 'concentrate'.please explain why the word 'concentrate' offends you before i explain the tinfoil experiment.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: tagor on March 04, 2013, 02:06:21 PM
before i explain the tinfoil experiment.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/first-results-from-the-box-investigating-the-effects-of-infrared-sky-radiation-on-air-temperature/ (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/first-results-from-the-box-investigating-the-effects-of-infrared-sky-radiation-on-air-temperature/)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on March 04, 2013, 02:19:59 PM
@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.

"concentrate" doesn't offend it is simply not precise enough.  At various points in time a closed system could be said to have "concentrations" of heat but still have the same overall entropy.  This seems pretty obvious, since it's the way most Maxwell Demons (attempt to) work.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 04, 2013, 05:32:42 PM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 04, 2013, 05:32:59 PM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: tagor on March 04, 2013, 06:09:00 PM
@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.

no the alu foil is reflecting the sun ray ...
to keep the surface warm you need a thick black surface ... ( not tinfoil )
it is not a maxwell daemon , it is well known thermodynamics
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on March 04, 2013, 06:24:11 PM
@sarkeizen.i disagree.the word concentrate is good enough
No, you are simply and completely incorrect.

If you have an isolated room with only a single molecule of gas in it existing at particular temperature.  Then it is moving about at a particular rate.  Right?  Clearly even someone as stupid as you could see that you by choosing any section of the room you could say that heat is either "concentrated" (vomit) or "not concentrated" (vomit again) there depending on the location you are talking about and it's position relative to the  single molecule.  It seems pretty clear that this would be the same even in an isothermal environment.  In which case clearly we can talk about changing "concentrations" without changing entropy.  Thus they are not the same thing.

Szilard's demon is simply a modification of this idea.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 04, 2013, 10:12:45 PM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on March 04, 2013, 11:26:54 PM
@sarkeizen i,l use a difrent word to flatter you
Since the 2LOT is about entropy, how about you use the word "entropy"?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Mr Logic on March 05, 2013, 05:11:00 AM
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.

Meanwhile, almost unnoticed on this forum (one single reply since January) the far more comprehensible Yildiz motor has been all but ignored despite it being demonstrated in full on Youtube (before its predictable failure to begin its university test). As I have witnessed enough genuine claims of specific details from reliable sources to be not just open minded in this field but extremely positive it still attracts all the usual suspects of bandwagon jumpers without a product to deliver, but quite diverse motives for crying wolf. I hope and pray, as I do with each subsequent and previous one, this will be the one which breaks the mould, and according to California (or Midway Island?) time have around 8 hours left for the 'tomorrow' announcement to materialise. Or not. You should always assume whenever a politician makes a specific promise it will never happen, but not a businessman.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on March 05, 2013, 05:35:43 AM
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.
Quote
As I have witnessed enough genuine claims of specific details from reliable sources to be not just open minded in this field but extremely positive
What 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).
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 05, 2013, 11:12:19 AM
@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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on March 05, 2013, 01:11:33 PM
@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
I 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: tagor on March 05, 2013, 01:32:31 PM
@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

what do you want to proof with this experiment ?
 
using a candle you get the same thing !
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: tagor on March 05, 2013, 01:36:05 PM
@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.

if you want you can concentrate heat ...
but with alufoil it is better to concentrate cold
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Mr Logic on March 05, 2013, 04:15:28 PM
It's been some time since I was more involved with this area so would need to search my distant memory, but the main example was the circular engine which ran when flushed through with water. Unfortunately although it demonstrated the principle it corroded the metal as a result, and would have needed some kind of inert alloy to have carried on. But if you can use water to run an engine once then you can do it full stop.
I already worked out in theory the magnetic repulsion motor which doesn't even need any unknown sources of power, and if nothing else could at least be used to generate power . I did also wonder about a closed system using capillary action, with fabric lifting up liquid and dropping it back into a pool, and would hardly evaporate or degrade the fabric if synthetic. It wouldn't generate power but would appear to keep going a pretty long time.

I also know a retired electrical engineer who is working on non-ferrous magnetism he has discovered, where rotating any material can generate a magnetic field. He seems to think this has the potential for all sorts of generation but as he is in his late 80s with many health problems it isn't possible to get it all done at the rate he'd like to. He also believes a similar mechanism should reverse gravity by stripping electrons from objects, making them the opposite polarity and being repelled by normal matter. Of course he'd be better explaining all this for himself but he's not great with computers and also not English and has trouble with his translation. I have encouraged him to document all this while he can and am hoping there will eventually be something others can work on.

Otherwise I've checked out various reports and every so often picked up something which made sense, and the only reason they weren't constructed as finished products was most were like the water engine where certain phenomena had been discovered but not possible to harness them without a huge amount of expensive resources very few normal people had access to or could get. But I've come across enough pieces of the picture to be fairly confident there is a pretty infinite source of free energy we can very easily tap if we work out how, and of course the final class of failures are the many trusting and extremely poor businessmen who are conned or worse by 'sponsors' whose sole aim is to get their product off the system altogether. Look at the Tesla tower for the first and best example. People still seem confused (including me) whether the power generated was done internally or simply used to pass on existing power from one place to another, but proved if nothing else when you get a system which does work and at a fraction of the normal cost no one will fund it. JP Morgan pulled his funding as soon as he discovered you couldn't charge customers for the electricity received, so removed a system which if nothing else would have saved billions on cabling worldwide. And if it did self-generate trillions in power.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 05, 2013, 05:47:09 PM
@tagor the tinfoil experiment proves that you can raise the temperature of something with no effort,fuel,electricity or sun. if you make your tinfoil into a realy good cone shape it,l raise the thermometer by a good few degrees kelvin.@sarkeizen ok lets examine the voltaic pile called the 'karpen pile'named after its romanian inventor.that really is a very visible and macroscopic 2LOT buster.take a strip of gold and a strip of platinum and shove them into sulfuric acid solution and hook up a microampmeter to both electrodes and chek how a capacitance develops between these electrodes that can be repeatedly discharged ad infinitum.neither gold nor platinum has the slightest solubility in H2SO4 solution.a clearcut 2nd law violation.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on March 05, 2013, 05:50:00 PM
Can you please send me the electrodes when you have finished?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on March 05, 2013, 08:02:12 PM
@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?
Quote
@sarkeizen ok lets examine the voltaic pile
No, let's finish talking about your tinfoil.  Describe your tinfoil inside a device which violates 2LOT.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 05, 2013, 09:24:11 PM
@trim12... no. @sarkeizen the best way to judge if we have second law buster is if the device does practical work for us so lets leave the tinfoil experiment and focus on karpen,s battery,which can and will power your kitchen clock for the next 100years so lets put about ten such cells in series and lets hook them up to your clock ok?   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 05, 2013, 09:31:16 PM
@sarkeizen.better yet lets short circuit a karpen cell for one month and then put it in your clock ok?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on March 05, 2013, 09:46:02 PM
@sarkeizen the best way to judge if we have second law buster is if the device does practical work for
Wrong 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. 

You claimed that the tinfoil absolutely smashes the 2nd law.   Thus you should be able to describe a device which uses it to break the 2nd law.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 06, 2013, 12:28:12 AM
@sarkeizen.wrong.the way to judge is if the energy gained is disproportionate to the variables coz as you say its difficult to get a perfect isothermal system.nonetheless lets put a thermopile at the focal point of the tinfoil in a average house room and 20 other thermopiles scattered round the room.you will see a few microamps emerge from the thermopile in front the foil and zero or near zero current from the rest.are you gona tell me that some random fluctuation of temperature is doing that 99percent of the time?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Xeno on March 06, 2013, 03:14:50 AM
Quote
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

If true, congratulations on you're success !
 
Quote
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?

When i was young, happy and ignorant of the true nature of pure evil that controlls this world, a series of misfortunate events took place in my life, forcing me out of my own comfort zone, the so called "bubble" that is the self percieved reality that is everyones "everyday normal life", forcing me not only to make the "bubble" transparent, thus removing the blindfolds, but forever expanding, by observing, analyzing, theorising, deducing, concluding, they say knowledge is power, ignorance is bliss, power corrupts, and total power corrupts totally.
 
I have always had a facination of knowing how things work, from a veary young age, always asking, always questioning and thinking, ask the "wrong" questions...
Teachers in school (a veary few) loved me for that, but the rest hated me, based on their dogmas.
The socialistic public school system, good for only one thing, inducing "respect" for authority, and thus making u into a modern slave. Functionable enough to be a replaceable cog, in the system which is created for the soul purpouse of maximised profit and concentration of wealth and power into the hands of the few who owns this planet.
 
If one does not study history, one is doomed to repeat its mistakes. a classic derived from : http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Santayana (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Santayana)
And if one chooses to study the art of social engineering from a power structure perspective, and everything it touches...
 
Whel lets just say, to keep it short, In this upside down world we live in, where whistleblowers gets prosecuted for exposing criminals and wrongdoings of goverments, while the same criminals are not and thus above the law, where private banking institutions, operating under a system designed to break from time to time so the ones inside and in the know how can abuse it to amass more and more real wealth and power, where technology is being misused in all kinds of areas ranging from "innocent" totaliarian police state survailance, (becouse u have nothing to hide right ?) to war whit hidden agendas, manipulated via massmedia and politics etc etc etc...
 
In this world, where divide and conquer, problem reaction solution, is the norm, lies, deceit and subterfuge are tools of control, backdoor deals is how u get things done etc, the only reason all this shit is doable, is becouse its all part of the same enormus system designed from the ground up, to be a master/slave dependancy, keep the slave ignorant enough to "happely" work for a living becouse its "the right thing to do", exausted from the day to day work, the little time that is left of the day, after food cleaning etc, entertain him, whit complete garbage, including the few more intelligent ones that might have an intresst in politics and other areas that requires critical thinking, call the televised monologes about the more intressting controversial topics a debate, and give the tired brainwashed slave the illusion that this is the right way to think and act, make sure the slave never engages in critical thinking, regarding anything related to how and why he is enslaved, make examples of the few who has the audacity to question it all, preferably by the use of so called dirty ruling techniques, ad hominem, strawman etc, effective ways to completly stop any "debate" depending on the subject, is the misuse of labeling the person something extreme, that the collective have been brainwashed whit, to always stir up negative emotions, you all know precisly what im talking about here.
 
So in this day and age, whit over 12 years of observations, studying reading learning, and playing the devils advocate...
We are all slaves, under a corrupt to the core socialy engineered system. Observe the reaction of someone who have not yet realised this. When subject is brought up.
 
One cannot force this information into someones head, it acts like cornstarch, one can only hope to nurture the removal of the blindfolds, therefore : If you want to know who rules the world, ask who or what you cannot critizise.
 
Figure out why that is, and it was simple, its a mather of perspective, when one has learned to see things from different angles.
Missing the forrest for the trees or missing the trees for the forrest...
 
The funny thing is "they" have such bloated egos, and like the rulers of old enjoy bragging, seems its kinda hard to not pat oneself on the back when one thinks one have achived something "impossible".
 
Look up "symbolism".
 
I welcome all of u down the rabbit hole.
 
First stop enjoy the view from atop the great pyramid of Giza, on ure way up there, if u by any chance happen to stumble across a group of homeless people, please toss them 1 american one dollar bill, they wont be able buy anything whit it, but maybe, perhaps, they can appreciate the gesture, aswell as the beautiful artwork incorperated into its design, i fear however, once they stopped fighting over it, probably ripping it to peices in the process, neither would be the case.
But dont worry one can always laugh about it, perhaps tell them this joke : the dollarbill i just tossed youre way was a loan, whit an interest rate of over 6%, if they look surprised, tell em 4 % of it is just to cover the yearly inflation of that dollar, ask them if they are willing to work, or perhaps have something of value to trade for it, demand they pay the dollar back whit interest, if they refuse, and gets agressive, you can always gun these unarmed people down... bring nukes into the picture...
Now then, whether or not u realise it yourself, you moved the first peice on the devils chessboard. The challanger comes playes and so far have always lost, it seems the game is rigged, and the best one can hope for as the challanger is remi, but that just means everybody lose, atleast when it comes to nukes and the samson option.
 
Get it ?
 
And if the devil gets his way the last bastion of freedom on this planet, the internet, sopa pipa acta etc u get the picture...
 
Money and greed, the fear instilled of a lost job, kicked out of the system of dependance, knowledge on a need to know basis, mechanisms of controll, shoot the messanger...
 
As long as people are willingly ignorant and naive, to blindly follow a system based on "authority" whitout criticly thinking, and never asking the hard questions, but prefer others to do the thinking and decitionmaking for them, they will always remain slaves.
 
My reality, the world i live in, is a waking nighmare that makes George Orwells 1984, look like a fucking utopia.
 
Simple conclusion : What self proclaimed master of slaves would allow the existance of means by wich the slaves could potentially free themselfs from slavery ?
 
Whit all this in mind, no chain is stronger then its weakest link.
 
Whether or not devices can be made that make or break old "laws" based on old outdated technology, is irrelevant untill it becomes relevant, by correctly observing and acknowledgeing the meaning of something deemed impossible, what it represent from every possible angle...
But this is not the first step towards the stairway to heaven, its the middle part.
 
Mass production and distribution/incorperation, design wise adaptation to be compitable whit previous technologi etc, and potential new technology it itself will lead to, is towards the end.
 
The first part, is removing the fear and stigmatisation surrounding asking the right questions in the right order, I and many others want "free energy" becouse it = freedom from the ruling elite.
 
If one have, like i have observed, aswell as many others, how this world works and how it operates, one can only draw this conclusion :
Throughout history the overwhelming majority of people that have ever existed, have been the servants/slaves of a ruling elite, that uses divide and conquer tactics, to keep the slaves fighting among themselfs, so they never gang up on the ruling elite.
 
This ruling elite, operates via the pyramid power structure, they are the apex predators of the human "race". It is soo deeply rooted that its not even being questioned anymore, and those who do question things... or does something that goes against this power structure, is a threath, and will be dealth whit accordingly, depending on the circumstances...
 
George Carling, youtube him. Enjoy.
 
Distribution of wealth in america : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM)
 
Did you know all this mr Hardcastle ? i would presume not, to buissy making quenco a reality ofc, easy to get so called tunnel vision.
 
The reason "they" hate and fear the internet, is becouse of what it represents, from their perspective, its to big for them to handle, controll, its a viritual meeting place where freedom of expression and exchange of ideas and information reigns supreme, accessable from almoast all corners of this world.
 
Now and since a while back, president Obama has the power to shut it down, in case of "emergency"... lovly....
Not to mention all the other restrictions him and previous presidents have done upon the american people against the constitution that the country was founded upon.
 
Drones over america, american citizen = to terrorists = no rights at all.
 
2.amendment, and gun grabbing, just like the nazis did and so on, history has a tendancy to repeat itself...
 
And the us patent office Saws tc 2800 memo, regarding how to handle certain things, that has the power to tip the scale of power back into the hands of the people, like a "free energy device" is a worthwile read, have u read it mr hardcastle ?
 
Have the rest of all of u read it ?
 
As i mentioned earlier, controll mechanisms...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on March 06, 2013, 04:11:29 AM
Xneo:

Now that we have all been deprogrammed we can get back to waiting for Philip to deliver something!

It's a Brave New World!

MileHigh

P.S.:  There is a great old movie that you would probably enjoy, "The Spy Who Came in from the Cold."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059749/?ref_=sr_3 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059749/?ref_=sr_3)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: SeaMonkey on March 06, 2013, 04:14:23 AM
Xeno,

Many thanks for your poignant exposition.

The true state of this World which is presently
in the hands of exceedingly bad entities will
soon become undeniable to even the most
stubborn of the apologists.

The system of patents is a prime example of
the nefarious controls imposed by those who
desire to enslave the masses.

Fortunately, this Worldly state of affairs is only
temporary.  All will be made good when the
smoke clears...

Thanks for the link to the document.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on March 06, 2013, 04:41:17 AM
@sarkeizen.wrong.the way to judge is if the energy gained is disproportionate to the variables
How 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.
Quote
lets put a thermopile at the focal point of the tinfoil in a average house room
Why not put it in an isothermal environment.  Since this is hypothetical anyway.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Xeno on March 06, 2013, 11:00:15 AM
@Milehigh ahh a classic :D and thanks for a good laugh ! (gonna grab it as i type the rest of this)
And yeah i know, i do still posess a bit of the good old self distance, hence and old saying of mine towards friends and relatives and acquaintances :
Hope for the best but prepare for the worst. That way one can only be plesantly surprised.
 
And yeah intentional creation of disinformation sucks donkey balls, and something one always have in the back of ones head when reading things, aswell as the whole greenscreen and cgi there.
 
@SeaMonkey, YAAAAAARRRR, ;P
 
Indeed a sad state of affairs, i hope it never comes to ww3, whit a man vs elite controlled terminator machine scenario... Using nukes isnt a viable option unless they have a solution for the radiatíon, wich is not currently seemingly in use to clean up the fukushima mess, (why help sick replacable slaves ?)
 
Atleast the funeral business seems to have a brighter future there, and soon worldwide, if they keep pumping and dumping the radiated cooling seawater back into the sea.
 
Yes, im quite the cynical bastard, whit a love for a bit of black humor...
 
Quote
Fortunately, this Worldly state of affairs is only
temporary.  All will be made good when the
smoke clears...


This can be made clearer, and elaborated further upon, depending of perception, and the angle of approach, know something ?
Please spit it out :)  i would enjoy reading that.
 
@all
Keeping tabs on all kinds of technological advances is a bit of a hobby of mine, and some of u guys aswell i take it, would not be here otherwise amirite ?
 
As stated earlier, and whit over 12 years of experience, the ammount of time i have spent reading and thinking about these subjects, and of seeing it from the perspective of the apex predator, adopting its way of thinking to the best of my abilities to be able to quite accurately predict what they want and why, in almost any given situation and how they will go about to achive it, aswell as their way of bragging about it, the bragging, they cant help themselfs there im afraid, one only has to know what to look for, and question ones findings.
 
Made me to be able to read people and events in my surrounding like an open book.
 
The apex predator and its offspring's goal, is to remain at the apex, by ANY means possible. The human species on this planet became the apex predator in relation to nature throu technological advancement.
 
And the same will be done to us when scifi becomes reality, when the slaves have become obsolete, and no longer needed, replaced by controllable robots, and have been reduced to mearly a threat, then what ?
 
Left alone, hogging resources and reproducing like rabbits ?
 
Hunted for sport ?
 
Or merly removed...
 
Unthinkable isn't it ?
 
They would never do that would they ? they need us !
 
For what ? disposable  slaves treatable and abuseable anyway they like?
 
Currently the us drone program is looking into the development of a nuclear driven drone, guess why ?
 
In the fifties doing that to cars was deemed to dangerous... how many drones have crashed/been shot down since they started operating in the skyes in warzones ?
 
Have anyone of you seen the recent advances in other areas of robots made for wars ? or directed energy weapons ?
 
How does a patenting, and thus alerting them of its existance, if they dont know about it already via payed internet techlurkers and was waiting for its success, so as to be able to go in and grab it under national security reasons and thus whitholding it from the public, like in so many other cases (6000+ and counting)...
 
A nanotechnology based free energy device, the biggest missing peice of the pussle.
Did u guys see the first episode of robot fighting league that recently aired and are avaible for download on veary famous .torrent places ?
 
Huge humanoid boxing robots, whit large powercables from their back, controlled by a human.
 
The military developed big dog http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jvLalY6ubc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jvLalY6ubc)
 
Just a few examples out of many.
 
If thats how far the public have gotten, taking into account what so called "experts" have said about the military being 20 years ahead and black ops program being 200 years ahead...
 
How far are we and they off from being able to make a real titanium based Terminator ?
Programmed to kill via a tagging based system(rfid maybe or other, remote controll, override), perhaps they already exist, hidden away somewhere, waiting for the final peice of the puzzle...
 
Studies about psycopaths are a veary intressting read, and have concluded 1 in 100 people "suffers" from it, and the pyramid power structure seems to concentrate them at the top, there they are 1 out of 20, or 5 out of 100, they know they are hated by the rest of humanity due to their extreme differances in comparison to the normal population, and they also work well together when common intresst converge, like mere survival or commiting crime, or amassing wealth...
 
There are also different "versions" of them, whit variations of their "success" also something to read up on.
 
Incase its still unclear for some what it means, the pyramid power structure, and pyramids whitin pyramids, Its actually realy simple :
Whether one talks about politics, economics, military, religion, information distribution, science, businesses, social interaction technology etc, its basicly hierachy, and its relevance throughout history.
 
Ponzi/pyramid scheme anyone ?
 
Its existance is probably older then recorded history.
 
Funny thing that one, and the potential of what corruption leads to.
 
Have u taken all this into consideration mr Hardcastle ?
 
I and i think many others here would like to know youre take on it all in ure next update if "they" havent gotten to u already, these are serious concerns that needs adressing.
 
For the sake of all our futures.
 
Happy new's here atleast regarding other world problems : http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html (http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html)
 
Brought tear's of joy to my eye's.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 06, 2013, 11:36:52 AM
@gianni and sarkeizen..err..so you are saying that a steady flow of delta h solar heat just happens to be following the tinfoil wherever it is in the room ey. Ok lets put it in a perfect isothermal room,now tell me why its not gona work here.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 06, 2013, 03:05:41 PM
@gianna.a perfect isothermal system is simply not necessary to prove a 2nd law violation if the device produces enough power to rule out your usual ambient interferences,solar,radiowaves,and random temperature gradients.       
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 06, 2013, 08:12:19 PM
@gianna.it is obvious that you dont understand reality.the reality is that in whichever room you put the foil it is going to heat its focal point above the average temperature of the room,insulated or not insulated.try it.and while we argue over wether its a 2nd law buster or not somebody is going to patent it and get rich on it.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Groundloop on March 06, 2013, 09:25:01 PM
.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 07, 2013, 02:02:54 PM
@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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on March 07, 2013, 02:57:24 PM
They ought to try it on Venus to focus the infra red, they will never run out of energy.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on March 07, 2013, 04:24:13 PM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 08, 2013, 12:46:05 AM
@sarkeizen.yeah,the walls of the box are all 25 degrees c and are emitting infrared light evenly in all directions.some light is being focused by the tinfoil on2 a spot on one of the walls of the box.the temperature of that spot is therefore higher than the rest of the box. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 08, 2013, 12:56:15 AM
and when i say in all directions i mean within the box
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on March 09, 2013, 03:23:58 AM
It looks like Phil is going to pick up the first Quencoes next Friday. His website says so. Then, he'll take some measurements in the presence of physical professors of physics. After that, he's going back in time to post a short update on March 12, while keeping the licensees fully updated all the time. Next up is a conference and demo in Europe, Tuesday 8:50 PM. See you there.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 09, 2013, 10:21:01 AM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: tagor on March 09, 2013, 11:26:08 AM
@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.

 i challenge you to tell me why it can be a second law violation
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 09, 2013, 03:11:29 PM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: tagor on March 09, 2013, 05:44:17 PM
@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.

sorry there are on my ignore list
it is obvious that there is a lot of solution to concentrate heat or cold
for free ...
 
with the pic of groundloop
 
http://www.overunity.com/12207/quentron-com/dlattach/attach/120999/ (http://www.overunity.com/12207/quentron-com/dlattach/attach/120999/)
 
you can concentrate heat , in a first box , and in another one concentrate cold
so you get a lot of electricity with the peltier device ...
 
in the desert you get a lot of heat during the day and a lot of cold during the night
it is working all the day 24/24
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on March 10, 2013, 12:00:21 AM
Updated quencon.com Site:


*****UPDATES*****
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on March 10, 2013, 12:47:20 AM
Quote
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

The 27h of March represents a significant slippage in the delivery of the "batch B" devices.

There is no longer any mention of a meeting in the United States (by invitation only) at the end of March.  There is no longer any mention of a follow-up meeting in Europe a few days later.  Now why would that be?

There is no longer any mention of measurements being made on the first batch of devices with invited scientists.  I believe that is supposed to be scheduled for Monday March 11th.

Quote
(subject to delivery of material / additive from Boston, Ma)

That is a highly suspicious statement and could be a setup for yet another delay.  At this late stage in the game it makes no sense to be talking about waiting on shipments of materials, none at all.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on March 10, 2013, 03:13:19 AM
Quote
Quenco
(Quantum Energy Convertor)

Did you mean: converter?

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 10, 2013, 09:58:02 AM
@gianna.lol! Now i know for certain that you are diverting attention away from my ideal isothermal box.you forced me to give you a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT and now you talk about some  emitter outside that thought experiment?are you crazy?stay IN the box mr gianna.IN the box,not outside the box.the entropy decreases IN the box yes.have you never seen an example of a isothermal light experiment in the textboox b4.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mrsean2k on March 10, 2013, 10:09:45 PM
While we're waiting for news (of whatever type), reports of a device who's vital component consists of "48 tiny sandwiches of specific materials" that relies on hot electron tunnelling to cool an object with "flabbergasting" results.



http://htl.li/iHfAr



Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on March 10, 2013, 10:21:36 PM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mrsean2k on March 10, 2013, 10:24:30 PM
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?


AFAICT there's no indication how much energy you need to feed in to achieve the result - it might be less efficient than conventional refrigeration in that aspect. Interesting though.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on March 10, 2013, 10:32:49 PM
It would probably be to expensive anyway as it needs a superconductor.

Maybe a small device can cool a bigger device's superconductor etc, etc?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on March 11, 2013, 06:18:04 PM
It's possible that the superconductor may only need to be a very good conductor like graphene.

In any case, the efficiency should be very good because as the heat is moved through the insulator, only the most energetic can tunnel the barrier, so as it gets colder less electrons would flow and power consumption would fall.

I would think that the voltage applied works mostly as a bias to generate a flow direction, similar to the use of different work function metals in the quenco chip.

Interesting stuff, appears to be achievable in a good home shop.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 11, 2013, 11:16:19 PM
@gianna.you might aswell say the same thing for all thought experiments in all textbooks then.you are basicly saying that all textbook classic maxwell demon boxes are not good enough to even argue because the heat inside them 'has to come from somewhere'.the walls of my box are emitting as much as they are receiving.it is a classic isooptic isothermal textbook example yet you continue to point outside the box.this is obviously one thought experiment that proves a 2nd law breach,even in thought.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 11, 2013, 11:29:19 PM
@gianna.oh and by the way,you are also implying that in all maxwel demon thought experiments with boxes of heat that the infrared rays must just disapear and vanish as a pesty interference?you are aware that all objects emit infrared yes?even near absolute zero kelvin yes?i dont know how you would even bother to try to make them vanish from any box.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on March 12, 2013, 11:47:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 12, 2013, 11:50:18 AM
@gianna.obviously the whole box gets a little cooler than 25c and the focal point gets a little warmer than 25c.i cant imagine what you are going to say now.the truth is mr gianna,that the entropy of the light actualy increases as a tradeoff for a decrease of heat entropy on that focal spot on the box wall.nonetheless its a 2LOT buster.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 12, 2013, 12:07:14 PM
@broli.maybe the men in black just tapped phil on his sholder straight after success for a 'friendly'chat?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 12, 2013, 12:21:12 PM
@gianna.strictly speaking,if phil succeeded in creating one of these high-power quencos it would not be a 2LOT violation because the 2nd law should only appy to random systems and not non-random systems but peoples minds are conditioned to apply it evrywhere so we say yes it is a 2nd law violation.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on March 12, 2013, 05:18:37 PM
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.   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on March 12, 2013, 05:22:56 PM
Quantum tunneling is weird.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on March 12, 2013, 07:35:25 PM

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".
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on March 12, 2013, 08:35:45 PM
Don't worry.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on March 12, 2013, 08:49:54 PM
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".

I believe he is busy but also agree that if it worked as expected, he would have likely posted some result.
Though I had high hopes of the first batch working, I mostly expected some problems to pop up and not work as expected or even work at all.
 
I agree with Philip's work and operating principals, (as far as I understand them) and do expect it to work eventually if not already.
It would be nice to hear of failures also, as to not leave everyone hanging, but it's not our choice, we are just spectators!
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mrsean2k on March 12, 2013, 08:58:16 PM
Updates on the site now:


http://quentron.com/index.html
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on March 12, 2013, 09:24:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on March 12, 2013, 09:27:35 PM
Good old European technology.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mrsean2k on March 12, 2013, 09:32:41 PM
I would never have associated Spain with Quenco, but 100% of people recommend it, so there you go.


http://goo.gl/dHxXM
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: conradelektro on March 12, 2013, 10:21:02 PM
This thread is closed till April Fool's Day.

Starting with April 1st, 2013, at 00:00, fools may post again.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on March 12, 2013, 10:59:56 PM
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.


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.   I agree that getting something totally new right the first try is not going to be a high chance of success.   But I believe he has a solid concept which will work out soon if the PTB aren't messing with this. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on March 13, 2013, 12:13:24 AM
Brain surgery and rocket science are a doddle compared to the difficult task he is trying to do.

All out of his own pocket, to try and help mankind have a better future.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on March 13, 2013, 12:28:12 AM
Yes Philip is working in the state of the art in nanotechnology, some problems is the normal with this type of development. Quenco is a very specialized device.

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?, Quenco is a development in the fast track, each time is more near to the success, but not in years in the future, in weeks!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 13, 2013, 12:57:36 AM
@gianna.the TOTAL entropy of this box does not change at all but the HEAT entropy does decrease because it is being concentrated on that focal spot.ie.heat flows uphill from the rest of the box into the focal point and back into the box again with zero expenditure of energy on our part.is this clear enough mr gianna?its a heat pump that doesnt need batteries.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on March 13, 2013, 01:11:32 AM
This truly is fantastic news.  To get around the obvious shorting issue at such small scales is a commendable achievement in itself.

Keep fighting the good fight Phil!!


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on March 13, 2013, 02:23:27 AM
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.>

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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Bayani47 on March 13, 2013, 03:43:06 AM
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?

Right to the point sarkeizen. I've been watching this thread since August and it's all talk no show. There isn't even any working prototype! It's all publicity and viewing counts to keep this thread alive and possibly to keep investors up to date / invest on the (fantasy) device. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on March 13, 2013, 09:05:28 AM

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.

Yes, Phil is honest but simply does not understand that he is wasting his money and his time with improbable physics. Not always honesty saves everything.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 13, 2013, 11:10:29 AM
@gianna,hey at least its free work.who,s gonna complain about wether its a 2lot buster or not.heat is pumped uphill for free in the ambient thats all that matters.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 13, 2013, 12:01:05 PM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on March 13, 2013, 12:46:37 PM
@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.

My "improbable physics" refers to his design (he thought that "tunneling" can solve everything, it could even enhance thermionic emission above its physical limit). Now, I feel close to Philip as never before. It is a bit sad he did not realize that before (and he still does not realize that).

@ profitis Could you give more details about your capacitor?


 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 13, 2013, 02:14:58 PM
@hollander.yes i see what you mean now.like any inventor phil has to play around with the arrangement of the gadget until a suitable one is found.one problem that might arise with a quenco is that it might give currents in bursts if too much current is drawn on it regardless of how efficient the heat radiator fins are on the outside due to the extremely fast and massive plunge in temperature at the surface of the emitter.my capacitor is galvanic based and uses an electrolyte,however the electrodes dont get used up at all.you can build it cheap as big as you want,30 cells in series occupy less than a centimeter thickness.have you built any devices?   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on March 13, 2013, 03:11:48 PM
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.

So yes, not being able to give an iota of credit does say a lot about your thought process.

I look forward to your formal proof of there being an invisible Information Bear sorting out salmon at every leap around the world.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on March 13, 2013, 04:35:01 PM
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.
Quote
What his team is doing is at the bleeding edge of manufacturing tech
More 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.

Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on March 13, 2013, 06:24:58 PM
Do you get invited to many parties?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on March 13, 2013, 07:11:43 PM
Seems like a good time to bring up this article : http://freeenergytruth.com/pseudoscepticism/
"So much of what we do in this field comes under constant and sustained attack by individuals who label themselves as critical thinkers and sceptics, when in reality they are nothing more than pseudosceptics, more popularly known as debunkers.

 
Therefore, it is important that we are able to identify this behaviour and see it for what it is – simply an attempt to twist and subvert any theory or position that does not subscribe to the mainstream point of view.

 
Many pseudosceptics also display behavioural traits identified as IDP – Imagination Deficiency Personality which include such symptoms as “delusions of superiority” – which we will come to later.

 
Before we explore the nature of pseudoscepticism we need to ask what it is that defines a true sceptic?

 True Sceptics

A true sceptic objectively enquires and seeks evidence, challenging all sides of the debate, including their own beliefs. Real sceptics are not preoccupied with taking sides, but objectively enquire to seek the truth, no matter where it leads. An admirable pursuit indeed.

 
Pseudosceptics & Pseudoscepticism

Pseudosceptics on the other hand, have a pre-defined agenda to preserve dogma and to dismiss out of hand any ideas not conforming to the establishment point of view. Essentially this makes them establishment defenders.

 
Pseudoscepticism or pseudo-scepticism is defined as thinking that claims to be sceptical, but is actually faith-based disbelief. Because real scepticism is a justifiable position, pseudoscepticism may also be defined as making pseudo-scientific arguments in pursuit of a sceptical agenda.

 
Pseudoscepticism is a general term which encompasses two types of faith-based disbelief: making positive claims that something is wrong or unreal without evidence (positive disbelief), and rejecting sufficient evidence.

 origins

The term pseudoscepticism was first coined by Marcello Truzzi. Truzzi was sceptical of investigators and debunkers who determined the validity of a claim prior to investigation. He accused CSICOP of increasingly unscientific behavior, for which he coined the term pseudoscepticism. Truzzi stated:

 
“They tend to block honest inquiry, in my opinion. Most of them are not agnostic toward claims of the paranormal; they are out to knock them. [...] When an experiment of the paranormal meets their requirements, then they move the goal posts. Then, if the experiment is reputable, they say it’s a mere anomaly.”

 
Throughout the years, other commentators have made very astute observations about the nature and behavioural charecteristics of pseudosceptics.

 
“What sceptics fail to understand is that scepticism involves being sceptical of your own position, it does not mean just being sceptical of that which you do not believe in, otherwise we are all sceptics and that renders their use of the term “sceptic” meaningless. A true sceptic casts scepticism on their own position as well. Since the Randi crowd do not employ scepticism in this respect then they are fairly termed pseudosceptics and demean the term scepticism.”

 
Despite their supposed adoption of the scientific method, pseudosceptics do not even subscribe to scientific means, because they do not update their hypotheses to fit the facts, but instead they always reject any facts that don’t fit neatly into their hypothesis.


Pseudosceptics ridicule and deny all paranormal claims while also denying all conspiracies and facts in support of them, meanwhile they unquestioningly accept any mainstream media spin and establishment proselytism as undisputed fact.

 
“There are some members of the sceptics groups who clearly believe that they know the right answer prior to enquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion” – Susan Blackmore

 
“The original definition of sceptic was a person who questions all beliefs, facts, and points-of-view. A healthy perspective in my opinion. Today’s common definition of a sceptic is someone who questions any belief that strays outside of the status quo, yet leaving the status quo itself completely unquestioned. Kind of a juvenile and intellectually lazy practice in my opinion.” – author unknown.
“They claim that their behavior is “scepticism” but in reality they know nothing about the true meaning of scepticism nor practice it since they apply no scepticism to their own beliefs or to the status quo but in fact have a total blind spot to them. Pyrrho, the founder of “Scepticism”, intended for it to be about open inquiry and suspension of judgment. I’ve never trusted sceptics, for the very reason that they are willing to accept the official version of things without a shred of proof but require unrealistic amounts of evidence to accept any other possibility.”
Regardless of the facts and evidence presented, pseudosceptics always START and END with the following dogmatic positions:
There is no evidence for paranormal claims. They are all bunk and cannot be true.
Conspiracies are all false. There is no evidence for them. Official sources are not to be questioned.
Anything that challenges the status quo and materialism is wrong and must be debunked.
Only mundane materialistic explanations are acceptable. Paranormal ones are not.

Naval scientist Eldon Byrd put it rather succinctly when he said – “What major contribution has any sceptic made to the betterment of humankind? How many Mother Teresa’s have they produced? How many great scientific discoveries have they made? Many of them are like movie critics–useless and usually wrong.”

 Personality Traits

Novelist and blogger Michael Prescott very eleoquently described them:

 
“Their penchant for denigrating and discrediting the paranormal is not simply a tic of the personality, but the ineluctable consequence of a certain fundamental view of life, mind, and the cosmos. Unfortunately, people with a powerful personal agenda do not make the best sceptics – at least not if scepticism is understood as the exercise of unbiased objectivity.


 Self-doubt – or at least the admission of same – is not characteristic of the sceptic, who prefers to radiate an aura of unshakable assurance. To admit any doubt is to cede territory to the forces of unreason – the primordial enemy, which, as we have seen, must be resisted by any means. And here we come to what is, as I see it, the real problem with sceptics. They wish, above all, to be certain – and when reality doesn’t oblige them by offering clear-cut answers, they turn away from reality and seek refuge in pre-existing theory.

 
They oversimplify history as a battle between good and evil, and miss its complexities and subtleties. They resist modern developments in science and cling to outdated, nineteenth century conceptions. They jump to prearranged conclusions and shut their eyes – and their minds – to anomalous data and alternative explanations.

 
In their quest to prove themselves right, they lose sight of the ambiguities and paradoxes of life. In their desire to be safe and sure, they turn away from anything interesting and new.

 
They are creatures of comfort and routine, not explorers. They cannot think outside the box. They will, in fact, deny that there is or ever could be anything outside the box – and they’ll heap scorn on anyone who suggests otherwise.

 
They’ll call names, cry fraud, and holler that civilization is in danger and the barbarians are at the gates. They’ll do anything, really – except examine their own assumptions with a remotely critical eye.”

 
Imagination Deficiency Personality

Many of these personality traits are linked with IDP – Imagination Deficiency Personality. In this study, the written works of ten well known sceptics were compared to seven criterion from Barbara & Walters (1883) Imagination Deficient Personality (IDP) scale. In eight cases the sceptics scored seven out of seven and the remaining two sceptics scored six out of seven for these traits. The traits selected from Barbara & Walters are:
Lack of meta-awareness: Imagination deficient people show a lack of awareness of the motivation or value systems of others. Often they will make assumptions regarding “right thinking” which fail to take into account the unique circumstances or social structure in which other people live. For example, they may argue with people about religion or other unprovable metaphysical beliefs. Low meta-awareness may also be shown by disregard, or in the case of subject 7 hostility towards, minorities or disfranchised people. Subjects 1, 8 and 9 actually organized conferences dedicated to ‘correcting’ the thinking of non-sceptics.

Curmudgeonality: A person with IDP is often suspicious of or hostile towards new social trends. Note, this is not the same as complaining about progress (95% of IDP were strongly for progress in Barbara & Walter’s study), it is instead a sense that values are slipping, or the world is suffering from spreading disrespect, irrationality or lowered standards. Subjects 1, 7, 8 and 9 frequently made remarks regarding a decline in society, all 10 subjects made at least passing reference to spreading irrationality.

Transcendental Substitution: The imagination deficient person tends not to participate in traditional social institutions which promote brotherhood, tribal union or spiritual values, so many of them substitute non-traditional institutions they find acceptable. For example, the IDP may take up an interest in magic, or science, or they may join a library. 64% of Barbara & Walter’s IDP subjects subscribed to three or more science magazines. Again, all 10 subjects were positive on this indicator, 2 going so far as to set up temple like structures in which to meet.


Hyper-realistic representation: This is a tendency on the part of the imagination deficient to expect a realistic or rational representation in all aspects of life. For example, the IDP may engage in nit picking about plot lines in TV programs or books, or complain about contemporary linguistic usage which conflicts with a technical term. Eight of the 10 subjects scored positive on this measure. Subjects 8 and 9 wrote books substantially about correct usage of scientific terms.



Fictional miss-identification: Often an IDP will react to fictional representations as though they are real. For example, they may complain about how a popular fictional TV programs portrays the paranormal, or get irate if a book they are reading invokes a ghost or spirit, or has a character convert to a spiritual outlook. Some write letters of complaint to newspapers that, for example, carry an astrology column. Once again all subjects were positive on this measure with one (Subject 5) even refusing to fly on an airline whose travel magazine included an astrology column.


Delusions of superiority: In many cases the IDP will believe that they have special traits or talents not shared by other people. Usually these are confined to a narrow range of human abilities, and tend to center around issues of intelligence or education. In the mildly IDP this may simply come off as immaturity, arrogance or elitism. Subject 3, however, consistently referred to others as “delusional” or made references to “Elevator not going to the top floor,” and subjects 7, 8 and 9 dedicated substantial time to denigrating the works of some obscure scholars.

Mission directed outlook: The imagination deficient frequently believe that they serve a greater cause, or that some necessary actions must be taken to avoid disaster. All ten subjects, for example, make reference to a “rising tide of irrationality,” and subjects 1, 3 and 5 invoke this before all public gatherings. In extreme cases this may involve actions that resemble attempts at conversion or missionary work."
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: leds on March 13, 2013, 11:07:23 PM
Seems like a good time to bring up this article : http://freeenergytruth.com/pseudoscepticism/
..............
+1

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on March 14, 2013, 01:27:40 AM
E3matrix

It would appear that you fired your magic silver bullet.  I suppose you could call it "broad spectrum" pop psychoanalysis.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the "freeenergytruth" web site run by a person of which one of his handles is "NewsEditor."  If that's the case then NewsEditor was a rabid supporter of Steorn.  For every major disappointment that Storm brought to the table, he kept on supporting them.  This went on and on and on, and for all that I know, he still supports them.  Meanwhile, Steorn is dead in the water.  They have produced nothing, and burned through about 15 million dollars in other people's money.

Assuming that I am correct, that sets up a context when reading your silver bullet.

A lot of the stuff in that article presumes that the skeptics are wildly and irrationally negative and are out there to defend the status quo like some sort of preprogrammed autonomic reaction.  It also implicitly presumes that there is almost always merit on the other side - i.e.; the people promoting some kind of alternative technology or alternative concept, their propositions have merit.

Well, unfortunately that's a big hole in the argument.  The silver bullet is more like a Mylar balloon.

Look at the example of the forums and people that play with oscilloscopes and coils and magnets.

E2matrix:  What is the median knowledge level for the electronics experimenters around here?

If you can answer that question in a truly honest and verbose way, and then go back and read your silver bullet prose, then you will have a more balanced opinion of the skeptics.

And as you know, it's very rare for me to get into any technical discussions with an experimenter that falls into the large group with a median technical knowledge level.  You know what my interest is and it's not that.

But the question is legitimate and directly applicable and gives context to the NewsEditor tirade against the skeptics.

MileHigh
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on March 14, 2013, 03:05:31 AM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: tagor on March 14, 2013, 08:53:14 AM
Why? I mean.  Could you be specific instead of just spamming the thread with a lot of talk from a psychic?

LOL
 
who is spamming this thread ?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on March 14, 2013, 02:47:59 PM

LOL
 
who is spamming this thread ?
The person promoting the words of psychics.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on March 14, 2013, 03:39:43 PM
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.   However here's a little background on the psychologist who made the statement about psychics:
 "Susan Blackmore graduated from St Hilda's College, Oxford, with a BA (Hons) degree in psychology and physiology. She went on to do postgraduate study in environmental psychology at the University of Surrey, achieving an MSc degree in 1974. In 1980, she got her PhD degree in parapsychology from the same university, her thesis being entitled "Extrasensory Perception as a Cognitive Process." After some period of time spent in research on parapsychology and the paranormal,[1] her attitude towards the field moved from belief to scepticism.[2] In 1987, Blackmore wrote that she had believed herself to have undergone an out-of-body experience shortly after she began running the Oxford University Society for Psychical Research (OUSPR)"
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on March 15, 2013, 05:08:18 AM
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.

Perhaps if you weren't so desperate for something to confirm your belief that there's something wrong with people who criticize things you would like to believe in (or whatever).  You would have done some checking into the article.  For example Quinne's "study" is crap.  He self-selected seven criteria from some list with no justification,  self-selected ten authors - again with no justification or methodology, published no information on how they were scored except that it's obvious that it was done un-blinded, it's unclear (but seems unlikely) if there was any control group.  If there wasn't there was no mention of what scoring is required to be considered deficient.  Given that the sample size was ten the confidence interval is likely too big to be meaningful. Barbara & Walters, according to Quinne did their study on people using psychological tests.  Quinne simply assumed that the same kind of thing could be done by reading authors and provides no validation as to why this would be so.

While I'm not sure how seriously to take Barbara & Walters (I can't actually find the article) even Quinne admits that his "study" was contradicted by at least one other study which looked at a bunch of skeptics and found no difference between them and the control group with regard to IDP.  I can't find that study either so I'm not sure how seriously to take it either.

Actually the more I read, I'm pretty certain that David Quinne and his article and references are just a joke.  I can only find a tag reference (e.g. cite searcher) to the Barbara & Walters cite.  No record of the actual book.  Black & Decker as well as Brothers who Quinne also cites seem to be from non-existent Journals.  Not to mention that the names are probably parodies of a hardware company, a journalist and a psychologist.  The only real sources he cites have nothing to do with IDP.

Quinne, his article and IDP itself appears to be an invention of the Inquiring Skeptics of Upper New York.  Writing an "Ask a psychic" column for their newsletter.  In his column he makes all sorts of outrageous claims and answers questions in sarcastic manner - which often enough appear to be foils to make some joke.  The only instance of actual publication that I can find of this gentleman is from the article in "The Skeptic".  Which might be a joke or they might be in on the joke.  Who knows.

All-in-all. Kind of a poor showing for "Free Energy Truth" isn't it?

...and also...uh...YOU.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 15, 2013, 10:08:10 AM
@e2matrix,if somebody comes up to you and says 'hey,ive got a perpetuum mobilum but you,re not allowed to touch it and rip it apart and examine it'would you believe them? Skepticism is healthy and necessary part of the evolution process otherwize we dont learn anything.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on March 15, 2013, 11:49:27 PM
I like how Philip is updating his web page to keep us up on the events.
It's good to see things moving, whether good or bad.
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on March 16, 2013, 01:56:43 AM

His updates are welcome, but it would be even better if he maintained some kind of continuity.
He merely replaces the main page instead of updating it.
All the prior announcements, dating back to 2011, are gone and regular visitors are unnecessarily confused.
A persistent stream of updates would certainly improve PJH's and Quenco's credibility.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on March 19, 2013, 03:00:43 PM
I like how Philip is updating his web page to keep us up on the events.
It's good to see things moving, whether good or bad.
His latest update (or act of revisionism) is that there will be no updates until his next round of excuses.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on March 20, 2013, 09:48:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on March 20, 2013, 10:34:19 AM
It seems the majority of the people in cyberspace hope that I fail, rather than hope I succeed.

You must admit that, so far, there are few reasons to hope. Trust is like money, at some point no one likes to waste it anymore. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: leds on March 20, 2013, 11:31:48 AM
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.

theres also alot of ppl that is hoping you have sucess on your work, and those usually dont post in the forums they just read them(like me)

trolls will always be trolls they dont do anything, produce anything have no ideas of their own, they just trash other ppl work

once you have sucess you will never ear from them again, they will just seek the next one to troll

and you are problably right moderators should have a more active role on this topic, sarkxxxx (whatever) and other like him arent here to discuss your work, they are just here to trash it and call you a scammer.

Keep up the good work phill
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 20, 2013, 11:39:53 AM
@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. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 20, 2013, 11:47:03 AM
@phil.i suggest you embrace the skeps and laugh silently(or loud) at the same time mate otherwize you give them the wrong perception.you know what you have there in front of you, they dont.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Elisha on March 20, 2013, 01:49:42 PM
The world is in a major crisis due to the wickedness of man, who delights in doing harm to others, that is the reality.

The man and his selfish educational system, where the norm is competition and encourages some are over the other, without understanding that every human being is different and can not be evaluated in the same way.

A selfish society where values ​​are fast money, body, fame, where the example to follow is to highlight over others, regardless of the damage you do to others or damage we do to nature.

We see it every day, selfishness like a cancer, becoming badly for everyone and in the process we hurt ourselves.

Reason with people who have called "negistor", is a waste of time, as her mind is already programmed to a way of being and thinking, it is almost impossible for them to be seen from outside of themselves, do what they do for them it is normal and the way to do, they are programmed with selfish mind.

In the midst of this great darkness, we see the light that this whole crisis is necessary, as a step toward understanding that we must change. This crisis is an opportunity to make a better world for all. To change the education system, to change society selfish examples, examples of violent games. And learn to live together in peace.

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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on March 20, 2013, 02:09:15 PM
trolls will always be trolls they dont do anything, produce anything have no ideas of their own, they just trash other ppl work
I 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.

Philip whines and whines whines and whines and whines like a baby who needs a change about "personal attacks" but that's not really what's happening.  (He also threatens, bullies and does other aggressive things like a teenager).
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on March 20, 2013, 03:16:42 PM
@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.

Could you be so kind to post a sketch of your device in this forum? I'm curious.
Thx
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on March 20, 2013, 05:45:19 PM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: leds on March 20, 2013, 05:53:11 PM
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?

is there any reason why you stalk this guy? or did you just picked him randomly
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 20, 2013, 07:04:52 PM
@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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on March 20, 2013, 08:33:23 PM
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 randomly
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on March 20, 2013, 08:44:10 PM
If this forum was mine this clown would have been banned, the next best thing is to put him on your ignore list, see instructions below.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: vrstud on March 20, 2013, 09:14:06 PM
Wow, thanks a lot.  Yeah, this forum despretely needs a moderator.  Sarkeizen drove Philip away from here.  Too bad the loudest voice gets the most attention.  If this was a city hall, security would have thrown him out a long time ago.

Don't bother replying, you're on the ignore list now :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: leds on March 20, 2013, 10:17:41 PM
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???

and about philip faillures...
his been trying to have this working  for sometime and havent had the results he expected but...
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 sucess

i dont see him scamming money in here from anyone
he admits his faillures in public even though he doesnt have todo it, while most hide and never reveal them

Phillip has my respect even if he cant accomplish anything
at least he trys, he has a goal,

PS: i will just problably follow broli advice and jump off this non-sense discussion

and sorry for my engrish im portuguese
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on March 21, 2013, 01:35:20 PM
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. :)
Quote
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 sucess
Why would you think that would be a basic rule about anything?  Is nothing impossible in your world?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on March 21, 2013, 01:42:59 PM
The only thing we know right now is that Philip has removed all references about delivering and demonstrating working "Batch B" devices by the end of March 2013 from his web page.  Also, for the first time ever, Philip has posted about setting up a European office.

Also, about ten days before he was supposed to deliver something, he posts here that he is offended and will not post again.

So it feels very uncertain right now.  That's in contrast to Philip's statements that he was certain that he would deliver working devices by the end of this month.

So we will see how this will play out.  Both the naysayers and the supporters repeat themselves over and over and there hasn't been much new to say for a long time.  We are back to waiting for results.  If we get no results then my assumption is that at some point Philip will reset the clock and state that he will have working devices for the fall of this year - a six month delay.

I am giving up on Philip if he fails to deliver anything by April 5, 2013.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on March 22, 2013, 08:48:43 AM
@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

mmm.... "i can't say more because of a pending patent"... I have already heard it. Sorry, but can you post a video on youtube of your device working, without disclosing the working principle? It would be enough to feed our curiosity.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 22, 2013, 02:00:53 PM
@hollander.yeah sure.i just posted a vid on this forum.go chek it out under the heading,'self-charging cap'.please note that the power that you see in the vid is coming from just a few square millimeters of crudely prepared active electrode area so when properly manufactured its power will go up by a factor of at least ten per unit surface area.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on March 22, 2013, 03:32:54 PM
blah blah blah
You 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.

You have made your position clear, yet you keep coming with the personal attacks.

I suggest you find a constructive hobby, because the only talent you are demonstrating here is one for wasting your life.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on March 22, 2013, 04:34:56 PM
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 :-\ . 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on March 22, 2013, 07:03:31 PM
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 :-\ .

So in just a few weeks we go from "conference scheduled in San Francisco for March 30" to an announcement that a new _announcement_ is scheduled... for May.... and that's called "real progress".

OK, just getting terms and definitions down solid. Thanks for clearing that up.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: doublehelix on March 22, 2013, 09:02:32 PM
@TK   You are attacking the guy for telling you about a business plan in Europe that he will share in May? he says in his front page that he is working on the batch b (which is what he said before), he posted pictures, he told you of his failed batch A, seems that you, Mr sarcastic and others just want to attack the guy and distort everything, are you all so sick you have to be rude and liars? wouldn't being rude be enough for you? I honestly do not get what makes you negistors tick, all that makes sense is that you are sick individuals that cannot stand the idea anyone would dare to try and find a solution to energy. Grow up TK!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on March 23, 2013, 12:12:05 AM
Thanks for clearing that up.


Your'e welcome, 'TK'.
I see you are one of the resident certified negistors here, so I just want to make one thing clear. We all know that Quenco probably can't work and PJH's projected deadlines had to be slightly adjusted in the past, but that doesn't give you the right to attack his person. Post something constructive or cheer up the crowd with a prayer for Quenco, but please stop your unwarranted pathological negativism. This is a place for open minded discussion of free energy technologies and IMHO overly negative or outright suppressive elements should be weeded out for the sake of humanity and free speech. And please, please don't answer, I have already added you to my ignore list.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on March 23, 2013, 01:46:42 AM
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. 

Yet still deadlines are missed.  In YOUR field.  All the time.  But, of course, by THEM... not YOU.

I'll tell you something that happened to me in the last 24 hours.  I was coding something in a new programming language based on a framework I had written to make the things I was doing easier to code/read.  It turns out I had ASSUMED that the new language, which looked like a stripped down version of every other language, did something that the others did.  It didn't.  Looking at the sparse docs, armed with my recently acquired (via hours of debugging) knowledge, it turns out that what was NOT said was more important than what WAS.

Assuming previous knowledge.

So there you go, I assumed something based on the knowledge I have acquired over the years in the SAME field (in something (as all languages are) almost exactly the same) and when confronted with something different the assumptions were incorrect.  And that was with something with a manual.  The key word being "almost" (exhiled to parenthesis, being that it's so "unimportant" (although it is actually THE most pivotal point)).

So let's face it people, Phil's team have been open and honest with the issues they have faced which have delayed their work.  There is a timeline and info in this very thread that tells the whole story.  It's shameful to criticise a guy working in a field with no path already trod for not being a marketing genius, especially when that is one of the very things he is being accused of being by the very same people.

Potato/potato.

ps

I will only respond with insults.



Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on March 23, 2013, 06:45:32 PM
@orbit3000 you say 'we all know that quenco probably wont work'.i say the opposite.i say it probably will work,but not necessarily at the power densities or configuration predicted.the fact is a piece of caesium metal spits out electrons on a continuous basis at room temperature.its just a matter of 'steering' them into the right direction, as best you can,its really that simple.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on March 23, 2013, 11:31:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: wizardofmars on March 24, 2013, 02:08:37 AM
I haven't visited this site in a couple of years - not since the heady days of Steorn, Mylow and Paul Lowrance's magic box. Of course, they all turned out to be frauds and delusions.

So Quentron by Philip Hardcastle is the new hot thing? How long has he been dragging this one out for?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on March 24, 2013, 03:42:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on March 26, 2013, 01:05:01 AM
Quote
So Quentron by Philip Hardcastle is the new hot thing? How long has he been dragging this one out for?

I believe that it's about six years.  I have seen references where Phil was making a similar pitch in 2007.

It's now Monday March 25th and this is what it says on his web site:

Quote
We are currently constructing devices (batch B) and expect to complete them in the next 10 days.

So it appears that Philip will not make his promised date of March 30th for the batch B devices.

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.

We were told that the material quality issue was resolved so the scheduled manufacturing could be completed for the end of March.  You have to make an appointment with a semiconductor fab and be there and be ready for your time slot.  It's not a game, some semiconductor fab plants cost billions of dollars and time is money.  There has been no explanation for the delay.

I don't see self-powering cell phones or iPads in our future based on Phillip's alleged technology.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on March 26, 2013, 01:20:40 AM
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.

So Phillip is in some sort of a "Catch 22."  Nobody will show up at his meetings because he hasn't delivered anything, and he must deliver something if he wants people to show up at his meetings.  It's a vicious circle that could be broken with RESULTS.

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.


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on March 26, 2013, 03:39:33 AM
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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on March 26, 2013, 03:58:32 AM
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.

So is this more or less complicated than love heart shaped Kit Kats?

Lulz.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on March 26, 2013, 04:40:59 AM
Register:

You can take the example of John Rohner and Intilegentry as the poster boy for endless delays.  He never showed a working device.  He got busted by the Securities and Exchange Commission and there was an FBI raid on his office.  Another one that comes to mind is John Searl and his Searl Effect Generator.  He has never shown a working device.  People have been waiting since the 1960s to see his alleged system come to fruition.

Endless delays and never showing a working device are classic modus operandi used by fake free energy propositions.

This reality can't be ignored in the context of Philip and Quentron.  Philip stated that he would show working devices on March 30th.  He stated that the material quality issue was resolved for the device B build.  He subsequently has offered no explanation for why the March 30th date has slipped.  He has not stated if the device B build will take place as planned.  The only thing we have now from Philip is a date of May 15th for an announcement from somewhere in Europe.  That news in the context of what has been going on over the past six months (or six years) is unacceptable.

MileHigh
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on March 26, 2013, 11:55:25 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on March 27, 2013, 01:17:20 AM
It doesn't matter how many reds there are in a row in roulette, the chances of the next one being black are still 50/50.

You are imagining a different pattern than I am deducing with this, perhaps because of your past experience... which can be a hinderance when new things come along - as I have mentioned.  I suggest that you are cherry picking the negative whilst filtering the rest.

To say that the "only thing we have now" is the May 15 date is a reflection of this.  In actual fact what we have is an open and honest timeline of events, information regarding mishaps which lead to delays, the entire concept laid out in front of us and an experiment (or two) for all to do to dis/prove it.

Have you performed the experiment?  No.

Your post conflates this concept with repeated failed ones from the "free energy" coven.  In doing so you discount the fact that this may well be the 21st century equivalent of a solar panel.  So whilst the rhetoric all points in one direction, you fail to commit to your conclusion.  Why not compare to physics.... remember electricity flowed the "wrong" way at one point.... of the latter centuries?

Just call Phil a liar and a cheat and be done with it, rather than hiding behind repetitive, passive aggressive musings.  At the moment you are hedging your bets so you will never be actually wrong.... if this is the case then what's the point of repetition if you can't commit?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on March 27, 2013, 01:43:05 AM
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.

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.
I'd say that you thinking that this betrays naivety on my part is a compliment.  Let's play Spot the Difference...

C

Javascript

I will agree with you in terms of unnecessarily tight dealines though.  Not that they were unachievable, unless you are a time travelling and/or omnipresent flea, in which case I defer to your inside knowledge.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on March 27, 2013, 10:18:44 AM
****Quenco Batch B devices are to be completed by Good Friday****
****We we will do basic electrical tests this weekend on 2 devices****
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mrsean2k on March 27, 2013, 10:42:24 AM
C

Javascript


At a guess, you have assumed block-level scope where none exists?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on March 27, 2013, 01:54:43 PM

At a guess, you have assumed block-level scope where none exists?
No, I made the C/Javascript competition up for sarky who can't tell the difference between them. :)

My issue was that all function arguments are atomic, even though there are no errors when objects are passed.  So to share object info you need to pass the members or make them global.  (The language is Jesusonic (http://reaper.fm/sdk/js/js.php), pseudo objects and funtions were added a few months back).  It's a great tool for doing or prototyping DSP/MIDI code since it is interpreted and changes are seen/heard instantly.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on March 31, 2013, 10:15:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on April 27, 2013, 02:38:01 PM
From http://quentron.com

**** Results will be posted here on 27th April 2013****

Which time? Australian time, European Time, Usa Time?

I'm eagerly waiting for....
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on April 27, 2013, 03:24:08 PM
The day is young. There's still plenty of time for PJH, or whatever he calls himself, to change his website and disappear the promise to post data today.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on April 27, 2013, 06:33:22 PM
The day is now old, and the same announcement is still up on the quenco website. But no results posted that I can find.

 :P
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on April 27, 2013, 06:42:21 PM
I'm thinking if the news was good, the information would have been posted earlier.
As they say "the impossible takes longer".
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: PeterMax on April 27, 2013, 09:45:25 PM
Now its official:
Batch B is NO success.

"
What I can tell you about Quenco is that batch B did not output the mA we expected and we are trying to understand why
There has been some ongoing issues with graphene being contaminated with pmma and there may also be an issue
of graphene forming a charged barrier with a potential higher than expected an thus throttling the current. Until such time as we get the SEM images done we are guessing, maybe it is the contamination or maybe it is coulombic throttling, either way we are going to need to revise matters and go to a Batch C, or even D, E and F.
"
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 27, 2013, 10:03:38 PM
hold on,hold on.he said that batch b didnt put out the mA expected.does this mean that he did get at least SOME current? If so then its already a 2nd law violation in action.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on April 27, 2013, 11:18:39 PM
 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yeah..... right. That's why he didn't report anything.... because a little violation of 2LoT isn't nearly as nice as a big one.

We really need a rolling-on-the-floor-laughing smiley.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 28, 2013, 01:10:24 AM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on April 28, 2013, 02:21:21 AM
@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.

However.... do you not think that he would have proclaimed, loud and long, that he had achieved this feat? After all, we were promised data, not "data if the results are over a certain threshold."

The absence of the data that were clearly promised may indicate several things. It may indicate that no testing was performed. It may indicate null results from testing. It certainly does NOT indicate "success" even at a low level such as you suggest. It certainly DOES indicate that PJH.... or whatever he calls himself.... has missed Yet Another Deadline that he has crowed about and that he has used to keep interest and excitement up.

He has cried "Wolf" yet another time, and each time he does, his fanbase weakens.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: markdansie on April 28, 2013, 06:53:46 AM
TK you are 100% right.
This is just as bad as every other claim like Yiltitz,
Lot of proposed tests, scientists, news conferences.
As I like to say "Show me the data"
To date no Pap engine, Magnetic motor, Buoyancy device, Gravity machine etc has been demonstrated to self run let alone produce excess energy. No credible data has ever been produced.
However there are many anomalies worth while looking at, one never knows.
Mark
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 28, 2013, 11:14:08 AM
@markdansie.im astounded at your dismissal of the promise of quenco when your eefg thingy may be doing precisely the same thing,i.e.rectification of hot tail electrons.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 28, 2013, 11:24:02 AM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mrsean2k on April 28, 2013, 03:03:04 PM

The site says "we still await test results from Germany". If it was milliamps I suppose your test wouldn't need to be particularly sophisticated. If it's suspected to be much lower (or is in fact non-existent), I'd guess after investing this much time and money, you'd want to make sure of whatever result you claim.


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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on April 28, 2013, 05:36:23 PM
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.)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on April 28, 2013, 10:37:34 PM
@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?

And you had better be careful about what you wish for... because I can fairly easily get 100 uA from ambient sound, vibration or even radiofrequency "smog". I don't know if you can, though ..... probably not, from the sound of things.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 28, 2013, 11:01:23 PM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 29, 2013, 01:43:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on April 29, 2013, 02:28:35 AM
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.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on April 29, 2013, 02:46:43 AM
Quote
How childish and untrue.

See how childish and untrue when 2016 rolls around.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on April 29, 2013, 05:21:30 AM
@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.

I'd like to imagine YOU stuck in a dark place with "100 microAmps" of current, and your _only_ light being an LED torch that you are trying to run from it.

People in this forum are lighting up LEDs from the electrosmog in their homes without difficulty. Shoes that charge your cellphone from the vibrations of your feet as you walk are on the market right now. Crystal radios, sound-powered headphones, ambient heat extractors.... as long as there's a gradient, energy can be harvested and used. It's all around us, but you have to have the skills and knowledge to extract and use it. You clearly don't. Sorry for you.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: fritz on April 29, 2013, 12:12:31 PM
It´s even possible to harvest energy from an intellectual gradient ;-)

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 29, 2013, 12:25:24 PM
@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.   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on April 29, 2013, 12:43:56 PM
Of course what actually happened was that information was released on the day it was supposed to be.  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!

I'm looking forward to the results and also any other announcements re the development of this technology.  I'm also intruiged about the product being announced.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 29, 2013, 12:56:30 PM
@regster,yes i also wonder what that product could be.a low-powered quenco perhaps,from the batch b series.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 29, 2013, 01:40:34 PM
@fritz,so true ,im spitting out intellectual gradients with the purpose of making them all confused lol.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 29, 2013, 01:44:34 PM
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.
Quote
  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".
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on April 29, 2013, 01:45:16 PM
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....
 :P
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on April 29, 2013, 01:46:49 PM
@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.

Riiiight. Keep moving those goalposts, you'll find someplace out of reach for them soon. Sooner than you'll be hearing about any power output from Quenco, that's certain.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: fritz on April 29, 2013, 02:39:32 PM
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

.....and calls it OverUnity.com   wow.  evil concept.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 29, 2013, 02:43:08 PM
@tk.lets just say that we will never be hearing anything about quenco ever again,does that mean a quenco doesnt exist?more philosophy.if markdansie,s thingy can spit out 300micros in every area on the planet,thers already a working quenco out there,mate.you owe me a nobel prize now.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: fritz on April 29, 2013, 02:47:06 PM
@fritz,so true ,im spitting out intellectual gradients with the purpose of making them all confused lol.

forced entropy.

A troll introduces virtual intellectual gradients and lives of the (virtual) flux.
The downside is that a virtual flux just stresses the environment and can´t do any physical work.

lol.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 29, 2013, 04:03:25 PM
@fritz,the upside is that the troll is the maxwel demon,doesnt have to do much work,and lets the others run around with a hundred theories where the virtual gradient came from in the 1st place.unforced entropy.lol
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Qwert on April 29, 2013, 05:27:55 PM
I think, if we already know how quenco works, and the inventor doesn't claim it anymore, everybody is free to make it / experiment and make profit from that. At least until somebody will patent it (does a patent exist for that quenco?).
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on April 29, 2013, 11:30:00 PM
So, Phil, what's that product you mentioned? Is it a replica of Steorn's 'Nodding Donkey'? Will it disappear from your website around the projected release date, like everything else you promised? Like the patent and the test results? Like the eternal hearing aid? Like the Phone charger? Like the conference in Palo Alto?

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on April 30, 2013, 09:50:39 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 30, 2013, 12:46:37 PM
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on May 13, 2013, 01:58:07 AM
As he points out, it's 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.  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.

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.

And on the subject of Gatorade, it has not touched my lips since I am in a mid state of fuzzy logic.  You however appear to have imbibed copius quantities, considering the extrapolations you have consistently made re missed deadlines with accompanying reasons in your simplistic, binary mind.  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.

No false claims of operation have been made.  No "investors" have been solicited.  It's all been as honest as it gets.

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.  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.

I don't.  But it would be a really interesting experiment.

What it boils down to is that seemingly logical conclusions are based on human constructs of the information available.  Such a simple concept, yet such limited understanding by people like yourself who think you are intelligent because you can act like silicon.

Keep drinking the Gatorade.... I am sure somebody, somewhere is giving you a pat on the back.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on May 13, 2013, 03:36:56 PM
Yah... and that explains why it's been two weeks since anyone posted in this thread. Right.




Yawn.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 14, 2013, 04:06:12 AM
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.

It seems reasonable to me to evaluate this differently than pure R&D in either sense.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Qwert on May 14, 2013, 06:57:56 PM
Philip is not a corporate schmoozer. Philip dreams of becoming a corporate schmoozer.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: peakprod on May 26, 2013, 08:35:21 AM
Why don't all the whinging losers here , go away and do something useful for once!!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on May 26, 2013, 07:52:11 PM
Looks like PJH (or whatever he calls himself) has taken your advice.


Meanwhile, if you send me a working Quenco -- which is way past its promised due date, by the way -- I'll be happy to save the world with it. If the military-industrial complex doesn't disappear me, first, that is.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: markdansie on May 27, 2013, 01:42:56 AM
Hi TK
Profitis is appearing on several forums as a johnny come lately without doing the research. In this case he has little or no expertise to be commenting on. I have quiet a bit of correspondence regarding this technology including some rather funny emails.
Nothing claimed, promised or stated ever eventuated in the last 3 years, so once again the forum comes to its end.
Maybe one day something will come of it and I wish everyone all the best.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: murmel on June 06, 2013, 12:21:55 AM
Is quentron dead ? they have no new product on their site...1 June has passed long ago...:-/
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on June 06, 2013, 03:17:06 AM
No.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 12, 2013, 12:23:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 26, 2013, 12:23:13 AM
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?

Seriously.  Software is probably the only thing that you can sell like that because there's zero production time and there's a easy delivery method.  However even something like an iPhone app is pretty unlikely to earn a million dollars in two months.    The maximal annual REVENUE on an iPhone app is something like $1.2M - only 18 apps average that a year.   The next bracket down is something like $800k and that's about 100 apps.   Far more apps make something like $10,000.  I'd put the odds of Philip having a million dollars in profit by the end of September at about one in a million.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: markdansie on June 27, 2013, 04:41:29 AM
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?
For something to be dead it has to have lived. This never lived.
There is nothing here, go home and pack up you bat and ball
Kind Regards
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mrsean2k on June 27, 2013, 10:58:40 AM
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?


It would be surprising if he'd said that. But he hasn't. Go and read what he actually says.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 27, 2013, 03:56:00 PM

It would be surprising if he'd said that. But he hasn't. Go and read what he actually says.
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.

Philip said:
"We did complete the software but launch was delayed so as to do load and penetration testing."
"The funding project will enable us to set up our own lab and do the clearly needed batch C."
"a product that will go on sale in July"
"we will September(ish) recommence our R&D"
"what I need now is to generate sufficient income (about a million) to fund the remaining lab work"

In other words: Batch C is part of the R&D, R&D is to recommence in Sept, to do batch C (which is R&D) requires a million dollars.  The project to raise this has something to do with software and therefore will be done in Sept.  Given that between July and Sept is somewhere between two and three months.  This means a million dollars needs to be raised though selling something in a few months.

You could argue that "Batch C" is contained in "the remaining lab work" but is not the entirety of "the remaining lab work" and therefore you can start working in Sept prior to making the full million.  While that might move the odds somewhat it would depend on how many more "batches" are expected.  Given Philip's naive optimism as characterized by the myriad of "It is simple to fix, just one more batch" statements.  I'd say that's at odds with his established traits.

In any case Philip needs some money to recommence work.  He will get this money through selling a product.  Which he intends to get by September.   Given that he almost never does anything on time I'm not exactly holding a high probability for a functioning website to sell something on Monday 9am EST.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mrsean2k on June 27, 2013, 10:46:38 PM
It's better not to make an argument by throwing together assumptions as you've done in your reply, and present them as if they were facts.


He say's he'll recommence his R&D in September and and needs to raise a million dollars to fund the remaining work. He doesn't say he needs a million dollars to recommence R&D, only that "
Quenco R&D has been suspended until we get our funding business underway".

There is no claim he's aiming to make a million dollars by September, except in your head.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: markdansie on June 28, 2013, 09:35:29 AM
Who really cares what he says or does there are very few who believes anything he says anymore given all the failed promises and deadlines.
Junk science
This might be worth reading
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-b-alexander-phd/there-is-no-free-energy_b_3499480.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-b-alexander-phd/there-is-no-free-energy_b_3499480.html)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on June 28, 2013, 06:14:55 PM
That's a funny article mark.   Written by a for Los Alamos guy (controlled by government and military).   I dare anyone to view these 2 videos and then say there is NO suppression.   These are hundreds of high level military (mostly retired), intelligence operatives (retired) and other highly credible witnesses who have proven credentials.   They PROVE the suppression is going on and how extensive it is as well as the reasons why - which are all related to keeping humanity enslaved with old polluting and unsafe energy technology.   I know these are long but really worth it and you cannot say you are informed on the suppression topic if you have not seen these.   In light of the world changing potential Philips work has I suggest he has been messed with already and it may well be why he has not yet gotten results from Germany.   These are the newer 2008 versions: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYIk2kfiL0Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oDueuZlI2Q



Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on June 28, 2013, 10:30:12 PM
Ah.... when "soon" no longer works, we always fall back on "already, but suppressed", don't we.

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on June 29, 2013, 02:03:27 AM
Ah.... when "soon" no longer works, we always fall back on "already, but suppressed", don't we.

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.
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.   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: markdansie on June 29, 2013, 02:50:44 AM
@ e2matrix
absolute Bull
Go read the statistics in this article I wrote
http://revolution-green.com/2013/06/28/energy-revolution/ (http://revolution-green.com/2013/06/28/energy-revolution/)


I quote
Electricity generation from renewable sources worldwide will exceed that from gas and be twice that from nuclear power by 2016 says the International Energy Agency.[/size][/color]
The IEA says renewable power is expected to jump by 40% in the next five years and will make up almost a quarter of the global power mix by 2018. The prediction is in the IEA’s second annual Medium-Term Renewable Energy Market Report :http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/MTrenew2013SUM.pdf  (http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/MTrenew2013SUM.pdf)[/size][/color]
In commerce, Green Energy Investment Funds are performing well with many more investors and banks funding new projects. On another economic front, who would have predicted an small start up electric vehicle company would have a market capitalization of $10 Billion USD just two years ago?[/size][/color]
So where is the suppression?????????????[/size][/color]
Just BS ....go tell your story to Sterling Alan he has drunk the cool aide[/size][/color]
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on June 29, 2013, 06:01:16 PM
Sure there is increasing use of solar, wind and some known technologies.   They will be needed just to keep up with increasing demand if something better is not released for widespread use.  But none of those technologies are going to get people off the grid affordably nor are they going to equate to free energy (once a device is owned) or even lower energy bills for most.   No Bull 
Are you saying you think all those witnesses with high level credentials are lying ?   Did you even watch the videos?   The proof in them doesn't get any better. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on June 29, 2013, 07:17:17 PM
Yeah but if you go to Alcoa, and tell them that you have a new way of producing massive amounts of electrical power that's much cheaper than the current market rate for electricity, and it's environmentally friendly, they will jump at the opportunity.  It takes massive amounts of electrical energy to produce aluminum.

The energy consuming side of the economy might be 50 times larger than the energy producing side of the economy.  Why would the incredibly strong market forces that want cheap energy be manipulated by the energy producers?  Don't forget that the energy producers are competing with each other also (assuming that you are willing to believe that).

In my opinion your grand conspiracy theories are just like listening to a broken record and the logic is a paper tiger.  The Industrial Complex would welcome the arrival of cheaper alternative energy and the economy would adapt.  The conventional energy companies would get smaller and reduce in value and all of the energy consuming companies, the ones that make up the vast majority of the economy, would benefit greatly from the new paradigm shift and be able to produce cheaper goods and services.

The energy cabal boogeyman is just a croc.  It's just ingrained myth from the counter-culture part of our culture that gets stoked by the free energy cottage industry because that's good for their business.  Call it a form of "marketing" if you will.

So, if you follow my logic E2matrix (which I know you don't), then you are just a pawn in a game.  You are a drone "radio repeater" that broadcasts out the programmed message whose source is the Inverse-MIB.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on June 29, 2013, 09:51:11 PM
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on June 30, 2013, 06:37:48 PM
MH,  That's a major fail in logic -- LOL.   BTW I took Logic in college and while that's been a while I can see the ill-logic in your reasoning.   If anything you have shown good reason why the PTB will do all they can to protect their current monopoly on power.   Simply because there is a large demand does not mean there will be a loosening of the grip the current energy cartels have on power.   Just look at the main page here at overunity for the article on Tesla motors.   The mainstream car companies and dealers are doing all they can to make it illegal for Tesla motors to sell a car directly to consumers.   It would be a better deal for consumers but the regular car dealers might lose some sales (and that is doubtful IMO).   
Also all combined the demand for power may be a large force but the companies needing power are not all working together against the very powerful energy companies.   I suspect most are not even aware there may be other real options for power.   They just assume it there was better options they would be out there (another fail in thinking).    I would also have to ask if you actually watched both video's fully as I find it hard to believe anyone can watch them without being convinced there are better and cleaner power sources available than we have now but those sources are being withheld from mainstream use.   If you are not convinced by these very credible witnesses I can only assume one is blinded by one's preconceived belief system.   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on June 30, 2013, 06:39:41 PM
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 all know how little power it take to run an LED.   Nothing of interest there except a possible future green scientist in the making. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on June 30, 2013, 07:41:20 PM
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

The kid is all right! There is MUCH of interest to see there, not the least of which is her approach to the problem. She did her research, knew her parameters and understood the problem space, _before_ she started building. Her presentation is both scholarly and engaging; she does a better job of presenting her work than 99 percent of _adults_ who try to get something across in a video. I wish I had a tenth of her presence and skill and charm. Her prototype has a careful finished look and it works! That little light doesn't look like much, but to dark-adapted eyes at night or in a storm cellar in an emergency it could be a life-saver, and it would still work properly fifty or a hundred years from now, no batteries to worry about.
Videos like this restore my faith in youth, even though I know that she is literally one in a million.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on July 01, 2013, 06:54:59 PM
haha that kid is a genius for her age.@e2matrix..i agree that suppression does happen here and there but plenty plenty is now beginning to slip through the gaps.we,ve now got some top elite physicists citing examples of 2nd law violations,where were these guys before?quiet,very quiet.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mrsean2k on July 01, 2013, 07:23:31 PM
What a star. Can't believe it only came second.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: markdansie on July 01, 2013, 07:58:16 PM
Great video on the light MH, I admire our younger generation.
I met a youg lady over here in Asia and she put together a 3 meg solar farm.


@ Matrix As far as suppression, its been flogged to death by the scam artists.
You say solar is not affordable....In Australia they just past the 1 million homes (we only have 22 million people) and not only do they save money, my niece gets a check each month from the power company. She had her money back in savings and income in under 12 months
You can lease an electric car under $200 a month now and use solar charging.
People like you want to sit on thir arse and expect the world to do everything for them.
Some of us are actually doing not sitting around moaning about suppression.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on July 01, 2013, 08:08:07 PM
@markdansie..hey i just thort of a even better idea than that kid,a cellular phne that has one of those peltiers on its back and is recharged by putting a cigarette lighter on it.big buck$$$..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: markdansie on July 01, 2013, 09:25:04 PM
@ Profitis, go look up the power pot on Kickstarter, used a cooking pot to charge your phone over the camp fire.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on July 02, 2013, 01:02:47 AM
@markdansie..dont be surprised if i send you some i.p. one of these days.ive got too many ideas floating around doing nothing here in this jungle.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: markdansie on July 02, 2013, 03:38:15 AM
@profitis
send me anything you like, but do not forget to take the meds...imagination can be dangerous.
Kind Regards

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on July 02, 2013, 04:18:18 AM
Can anybody guess what the product might be? A battery powered 2nd law violator? An orgone-powered paper weight? A MP5 player? An almost eternal hearing aid? Who knows?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on July 02, 2013, 05:02:53 AM
Quote
We are not seeking any donations or investors but have developed a product that will go on sale in July.

Quote
Can anybody guess what the product might be?

Chinese fortune cookie says beware of Jedi chicken coop raiders from Farpoint Station.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: markdansie on July 02, 2013, 10:30:44 AM
Just to show we are not prejudice our site covered this to[size=78%]pic (much to my amusement).[/size]

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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on July 02, 2013, 09:37:04 PM
@markdansie,put this one heading for that website,ask the publics what will happen if you put a concave mirror in a isothermal box,you will start a furore of debate,alot of hits.the focal point(the debate) will heat up.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on July 04, 2013, 01:56:12 AM
News
The long awaited funding business launch is here.

Soon has become
0800 GMT on Saturday 13th July

Product will cost $2.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Poit on July 04, 2013, 02:02:22 AM
News
The long awaited funding business launch is here.

Soon has become
0800 GMT on Saturday 13th July

Product will cost $2.

It's always in the future some time isn't it..... why even post this?! just freaking wait till Saturday the 13th to post!

I am so sick of this waiting business.... especially since the destination actually never happens!

I am happy to wait for things that happen... like waiting in line at a restaurant... you know its a means to an end.. wait here, get food...

THERE IS NEVER ANY FOOD ON THIS FORUM! JUST WAITING!~!! ARHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on July 04, 2013, 04:54:43 AM
The soon to be announced announcement of the announcement of the new date of the announcement of something will be announced soon.


Stay tuned.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Poit on July 04, 2013, 05:22:29 AM
The soon to be announced announcement of the announcement of the new date of the announcement of something will be announced soon.


Stay tuned.

:)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: markdansie on July 04, 2013, 12:56:49 PM
@Poit
sometimes the journey is more important than the destination. In the case of Quentron the journey is not unlike an object in orbit
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Poit on July 04, 2013, 03:19:38 PM
@Poit
sometimes the journey is more important than the destination. In the case of Quentron the journey is not unlike an object in orbit

That saying normally applies to things, yes, i agree...

Does it apply to people giving dead lines that are never met at over unity forums? hell no!

How many times does one have to be burnt for one to realise?

I believe there is OU out there... but I am sick of people claiming they have it BUT you can't have it now, you have to wait X amount of time and that X never comes!!! (or it might seem like it has, but turns out to be a hoax!) THATS where my fustration comes from!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on July 04, 2013, 06:03:50 PM
lol.poit is a angry electron.come poit,lets stomp our feets..stomp,stomp,stomp..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: markdansie on July 05, 2013, 01:47:04 AM
@ poit
you must be a real fan of Sterling Alan at Freeenergynews.com
He holds the world record for proclaimed working OU technologies.
Hope you enjoy out site
http://revolution-green.com/ (http://revolution-green.com/)


PS you are correct to date nothing has panned out.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on July 05, 2013, 08:59:28 AM
Just seen quentron website update.

This guy seems to go on with the bullshits

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on July 05, 2013, 06:31:07 PM
Just to show we are not prejudice our site covered this to[size=78%]pic (much to my amusement).[/size]

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
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.   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on July 05, 2013, 09:18:19 PM
Well I suppose that I would be called a "NEGISTOR."

Something big is coming out of the woodwork?  I am shaking in my boots?   Because something big may be happening next week?

What the hell is a "funding business launch?"

Quote Phil:

Quote
I ask all supporters to go to the site and make the small $2 purchase and to then post their experience

E2matrix, can't you see how bad this looks?  What can you possibly get for two bucks?  A small piece of one of Phil's silk scarves?  A key chain?  A certificate that will grant you the right to purchase stock certificates in Heat Suck Enterprises starting in 2019?

I predict that this is just another hair-brained scheme to solicit funds and pass around the hat and beg for money without ever having demonstrated a single working prototype.  Perhaps the $2 will get you a cheap cheap pen that costs six cents in volume.  The factory worked out a deal with Phil where for $0.0008 per pen they will put a "Quenco" sticker on the pens.  Minimum order quantity 5000 pens.

Your chance to get in on the ground floor and change the world!

MileHigh
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on July 06, 2013, 01:40:49 AM
 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on July 06, 2013, 02:21:41 AM
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!
 
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.
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Poit on July 06, 2013, 05:31:47 PM
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.

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?!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: markdansie on July 06, 2013, 06:07:50 PM
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.
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

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on July 06, 2013, 07:40:16 PM
The only connection with the product that will be launched on the 13th with Quenco is Philip, he devised both.

The profit from the product will both be used for humanitarian aid and research and development of the Quenco.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on July 06, 2013, 09:03:21 PM
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?!

I would guess that the $2.00 wouldn't get you home either.
 
Using your logic, could you name one thread that should not be deleted?
I wonder if you will extend your bet for ten years and include any other technology as well?
 
I'm just trying to understand why you come here if your sure nothing is ever going to work.

 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on July 06, 2013, 09:29:53 PM
From Wired (uk)

I liked reading the comments.

 http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-03/09/230-percent-efficient-leds?p=6
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on July 06, 2013, 09:40:55 PM
@markdansie..its just a matter of engineering.the professor fu has clearly demonstrated the principal in action.there is no limit to how much of a sinkhole can be created for ambient heat,there is a limit for every particular design of engine thus its strictly engineering that we have to worry about.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on July 07, 2013, 06:24:54 PM
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.
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.   


 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: markdansie on July 07, 2013, 09:22:10 PM
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 ?
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

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on July 08, 2013, 02:05:20 AM
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

I have done some thermal modeling on the transfer of heat into a centimeter square chip and there is a problem, but there is also a way around it up to about 1000 watts.
So even if you need to use four or five chips to get 5kw output, why is that a problem?
You can buy a 1200 watt electric heater in a small 8" area, and it transfers the heat to the air just fine. If you think of this working in reverse you would need a collection area of about 3 foot square to provide ambient heat for about 5000 watts.
 
I agree it will need something special to get the heat input that Philip originally planned (10,000 watts per cm2), but a very useful device could still be built with a few extra chips.
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on July 08, 2013, 03:18:20 AM
@lumen i think mark is getting confused between collecting ambient heat fluctuations and creating a sinkhole in the ambient,two different things.the amount of power on a cm2 tile can be truly large if the grid adequately rectifies electrons.the universe compensates a strain in entropy by plunging a temperature gradient in a isothermal system and maintaining it as long as the constraint is present.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on July 09, 2013, 05:20:38 AM
It's better not to make an argument by throwing together assumptions
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.

Quote
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"?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on July 12, 2013, 04:33:47 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mrsean2k on July 13, 2013, 12:12:20 PM
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"?


Yes, but you'll note I specifically used the phrase "throwing together". Your assumptions are derived from your poorly justified interpretation of PJH's words. It's OK, we all make mistakes. Some of us even admit them.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Albert Johnson on July 13, 2013, 01:36:15 PM
Now it slipped to July 19th...

"I kid you not."  ;D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on July 13, 2013, 04:19:17 PM
Quote
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.

Yeah the Quenco funding business, he is working out some final issues with PayPal so that the money begging alarms don't get set off.  For two dollars you will get to "buy into the fantasy" and that should give him about another two years before announcing the "social revolution."  Buy toaster ovens and vacuum tubes while you still can before they are made illegal.

You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money
For people with sucker's bait
All I can tell is brother you have to wait and wait and wait and wait.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on July 14, 2013, 03:57:23 AM
Your assumptions are derived from your poorly justified interpretation of PJH's words.
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2013, 07:24:22 AM
And here's another clue for you all: the walrus was Paul.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: markdansie on July 14, 2013, 10:59:01 AM
Clue number 2
I would like to be
Under the sea
in an Octupus's garden in the shade




Clue number 3
Men in black always want pink icing on their donuts.


So having all these clues you can see strong evidence supporting these claims


Kind Regards









Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on July 14, 2013, 08:21:32 PM
lol @markdansie..whats with you and the recurring octopus riddle.im not even gona ask bowt the donuts.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on July 14, 2013, 09:27:34 PM
If you read this thread backwards the launch date gets closer and closer.  You also get back your repossessed pickup truck.

"I put instant coffee in a microwave oven and almost went backwards in time."

- Steven Wright
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mrsean2k on July 19, 2013, 10:01:37 AM
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?


Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on July 22, 2013, 06:21:14 PM

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on July 24, 2013, 10:00:36 PM
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..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on July 24, 2013, 10:31:03 PM
I'm betting that it's a combination Popsicle maker and LED flashlight.  It's like a plastic mold for a Popsicle that includes two recyclable environmentally friendly wooden sticks.  You pour your Kool-Aid mixture into the container.  There is a place for you to insert your future Quenco chip.

When you insert the Quenco chip into the Popsicle maker it sucks heat out of the liquid Kool-Aid and powers the LED flashlight.  After 15 minutes you get a nice frozen Kool-Aid Popsicle to enjoy!

Your two bucks puts you in the queue for buying the Quenco chip.  Proceeds from this online offer go to the Arctic Penguin Preservation Society.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on July 24, 2013, 11:42:03 PM
That post creates quite an image in my mind.

In fact it is quite a good idea when Quenco is developed.

You seem to have a sense of humour so soon your $2 will be helping third world children get fed and educated as well as giving them have a cheap Popsicle.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on July 25, 2013, 12:20:06 AM
I hope that all of Africa doesn't get sucked up into a multi-level marketing scheme.  Quenco tulip mania would upset the entire world order.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on July 25, 2013, 12:24:14 AM
You have a really great imagination.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: mrsean2k on July 25, 2013, 12:38:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: markdansie on July 26, 2013, 04:11:52 AM

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.


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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on July 29, 2013, 02:46:47 AM
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..


Are the three days over now?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: markdansie on July 29, 2013, 06:41:08 AM
5 days and counting
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: murmel on July 29, 2013, 05:17:05 PM
has been "next week" for 2 weeks now...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on July 29, 2013, 06:38:27 PM

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
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.

The more funding you take from investors or capitalists, the more of your share/work, you are selling, until you loose controlling interest and your work is finally sold by the investors to get a return on their investment.
 
In the end, you had all the ideas, did all the work, spent all the money they invested and end up with nothing.
You sold your idea for money, used the money to advance your idea and in the end gave it to someone else to save for a rainy day.
 
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on July 29, 2013, 09:45:04 PM
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.

I didn't simply assert it.  I argued it and supported each statement from Philips's own words.

Yawn...when you want to make an argument, let me know.  Your constant asserting is just...well...boring (not that there's very much going on here anyway...or with Philip so it seems)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on July 31, 2013, 09:41:17 AM
Quenco now points to    http://www.buddink.com/   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on July 31, 2013, 02:54:13 PM
Quote
We need to draw a million caricatures (we call them buddinks)
every day, so we need up to 50,000 artists (buddinkers).

No sweat!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: vrstud on July 31, 2013, 03:00:50 PM
Tell me he got hacked?  This can't be serious?

Artists?  really, get a software program to do that.

I am shaking my head in confusion/disbelief/sadness
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on July 31, 2013, 03:40:28 PM
eish..if only he had one rough prototype..one prototype,,even a shitty one..companies wouldve thrown cash at him
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on August 01, 2013, 02:40:09 AM
eish..if only he had one rough prototype..one prototype,,even a shitty one..companies wouldve thrown cash at him
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on August 01, 2013, 03:27:25 AM
It's the old cliche about reality being stranger than fiction.  The numbers just don't add up any way you look at it.   So you need a perfect Super Bowl add that would cost a lot of money and it would have to really hit, or you need a viral video and what are the chances of that?

Then, if by some fantabulous stroke of luck you get the buzz you are looking for, then you need a small army of people to qualify the army of willing caricature artists.  And for sure there is not an army of caricature artists in Africa.

So Phil may have set up his financial transaction system and all that jazz, but it's only the tip of the iceberg.  Reality is stranger than fiction sometimes.  I was just reading about pets.com the other day!

Quote
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.

They only blew 300 million!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on August 01, 2013, 03:39:52 PM
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.

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.
It's not clear WHO is getting the money when I buy something from Amazon either.

Quote

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.
Maybe some Amazon employees are involved in Scientology, African charities, yachting, muffin baking or something.  They should make that clear on their website.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.

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.
I love it when happy sea lions insult me.  Have another fish.  Ow ow!  Such an easy life.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on August 01, 2013, 05:19:09 PM
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.

It's also standard practice (and depending on where you live required) for NGO's to publish how much money is actually getting to the poor people.   The breakdown is only mentioned in the artist T&C's.  Furthermore while it's reasonable to expect that Médecins Sans Frontières uses some money for infrastructure and similarly it's reasonable to assume Budink has some infrastructure costs e.g. webhosting.   It's deceptive that the real purpose of Budink is to fund Philip's crazy.

Philip tries to disclaim that this is not a charity however disclaimer may not be sufficient.  He has stated himself that this is a humanitarian effort.

Quote
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.

Quote
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
This 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.

Quote
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.

So when do I get to see your Budink?  I'm sure you can scrape up the $2.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on August 01, 2013, 08:40:44 PM
Ow ow!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on August 02, 2013, 02:17:24 PM
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".

Also where are all the Buddinks?   Doesn't Phillip have at least a dozen supporters here on OU?  I want to see BruceTPU, Trim12, Register, Lumen, Mrsean2k...come on - surely you have spent more than $2 on your delusions concerning free energy in the past?  Also what about the alleged poor children?  Don't you care enough to spend $2 of your money to help these people?

...or are you all way too embarrassed at the level of crazy Phillip is exhibiting?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bud%20dink'd
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: vrstud on August 02, 2013, 08:54:27 PM
now it looks like the website is down. 
Too many people wanting charactures at once?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: trim12 on August 03, 2013, 01:24:26 AM
The site is being improved.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on August 03, 2013, 02:48:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Regster on August 05, 2013, 12:54:38 AM
I would have thought that you, of all "people", would be against expecting others to jump through hoops.  But I forget.  Such a happy life.  Ow ow.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on August 06, 2013, 07:03:55 PM
It is a little interesting that none of the defenders of the faith appear to consider their belief worth spending $2.

Phillip seems to be on-target for getting his million sometime after 2100.

I will say that Phillip tying his "research" onto his cartooning business does afford some relief from the "Well why don't you just wait X days (weeks, months)?" tropes
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on August 14, 2013, 02:25:43 AM
So Philip has made almost $250!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If I knew that's all he needed to set up a lab and complete batch C then I would have written him a check...

Assuming Philip needs $6000 just to start work, "soon" is about a year away.  Right now he's scheduled to get a million by 2165...

So any of you people ready to recant about this being ready any time soon?  or that Philip was being less than honest with all of those dates he kept throwing out?



Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on August 14, 2013, 03:04:49 PM
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 rouse
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on August 25, 2013, 03:33:01 AM
Are there official numbers regarding the 'social revolution' and 'incredible humanitarian venture' yet?
Is batch C already in production?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: markdansie on August 25, 2013, 07:12:23 AM
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 rouse
Not 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
Mark
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: bugler on August 25, 2013, 10:38:57 PM
One year ago I said I would come back in a year to this thread to confirm that quentron would get nowhere.

The year has past and quentron got nowhere.

I will come next year for the same reason.

There is no free energy in quentron.

Cheers.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on August 26, 2013, 12:26:24 AM
It's pseudoskeptics like you who are preventing PJH, or whatever he calls himself, from attaining his goal. Have you bought your "buddink" caricature yet? I'll bet you haven't.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on August 26, 2013, 03:07:26 AM
I am getting one for my goldfish!  If everyone that had an aquarium did the same we could change the world!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on August 26, 2013, 03:51:54 AM
@markdansie..the primative fu capacitance is fact and here to stay and simply wont go away.that much we know.now we must assume after hardcastles exposure to the top labs in the world he couldnt improve upon this primative fu valve one iota? Unlikely.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on September 11, 2013, 08:59:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on September 19, 2013, 05:34:22 PM
It looks like the work on quenco, is going to resume.
 :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on September 23, 2013, 12:29:18 AM
here is a working variation of quenco that i made.a  photoelectrochemical cell giving constant 20microamp of dark current due to ambient generated thermal electrons.it works in the dark and in the light.a drinking straw was used to contain the active materials.proof that quencos are possible.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on September 23, 2013, 12:17:19 PM
try again
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on September 24, 2013, 03:50:46 AM
@profitis
That's interesting.
Are you sure it's converting heat and not chemical (battery)?
What tests have you done that would prove it's converting heat?
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on September 24, 2013, 10:29:03 AM
@lumen,thats the first thing that i made sure of,its definitly not chemical energy as the semiconductor material is totaly insoluble in the electrolyte. sub-visible light bandgap material stretching into the infrared was used and prepared in a special way and is extremely sensitive to temperature changes.if i just breathe on it the current increases dramaticly so this is definitly dark current,no temperature difference required ie.a 2nd law discrepency.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on September 26, 2013, 08:51:57 PM
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?

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on September 27, 2013, 04:55:44 AM
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.

The most interesting thing in this thread is not all the claims or ideas or concepts or theories that Philip has made.
Or, Even the number of companies or people making progress in this exact area of environmental heat conversion,
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.
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.
 
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.
 
I'm not sure at this point what it is, but your obsession with this single thread is not by chance!
Maybe you could fill us all in eh!
 
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on September 27, 2013, 06:07:40 PM
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.

Quote
Or, Even the number of people from the past that have made similar claims of converting environmental heat into usable energy.

Obviously since the number of physical laws restricting claims are significantly fewer than the number of laws restricting what you can actually make.

Quote
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.
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.
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...

Quote

I'm starting to think
Unlikely.

Quote
..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?

If you have a hypothesis and a probabilistic expectation.  You can't consider the expectation both evidence *FOR* a hypothesis *AND* against a hypothesis.

Quote
I'm not sure at this point what it is, but your obsession with this single thread is not by chance!
Maybe you could fill us all in eh!
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on September 27, 2013, 09:39:42 PM
And of course your obsession with ONLY this thread is.......?
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on September 27, 2013, 10:14:39 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on September 27, 2013, 10:36:51 PM
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.
 
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.
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.
 
The data here indicates something more, something beyond any known reason to this point. So why don't you just go ahead and fill us in on the obsessive compulsive disorder you are showing and tell us how you are connected to this device.
Or maybe some other similar device you may be connected to, or even why your trying to discredit this type of research as fictional.
I think it's time you just let the cat out.
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on September 27, 2013, 11:18:55 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.

i ) I've made arguments about how Philip's behavior should affect your expectations.  I find this entertaining because none of you can modify your priors each time Philip fails.  Many of you can't even admit that Philip has failed in any way.  It's like being able to spend time with people from a zany cult.   Without the chance that you'll all go Waco on me.

ii) I've made arguments about how at the very least you should consider him a horrible manager based on pretty objective terms.  Again this is amusing because the response seems to be "That's disrespectful and you should be banned." which should also answer your question as to why I don't join more threads. Again I get to watch this circus without the chance that anyone tries to force-feed me Kool-Aid.  Although Philip did try to bully and sue me or he lied about it.

iii) I've talked about information theory, which is more my forte however nobody seemed to understand the issue.
iv) You then had some long and highly amusing (for me) discussion about how if I don't understand the mechanism of Philips device then I can't objectively determine that it doesn't work.
v) And then there was Philip offering pr0n.
vi) And then there was Philip's magical mystery money making machine.  Which failed...or perhaps you can't think of that as a failure either.

Quote
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!

Quote
So why don't you just go ahead and fill us in on the obsessive compulsive disorder you are showing and
This is terribly insensitive to people who actually have this medical condition.  You should apologize.

Quote
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.

Quote

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.
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...

Actually, you know what?  Just do that.   Please.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on September 27, 2013, 11:34:23 PM
buddink.com seems to be down the last days. Maybe the batch c funding is complete?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on September 27, 2013, 11:51:29 PM
A few days down is more than a server crash.  I suspect that the whole thing has gone bust.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on September 28, 2013, 12:12:01 AM
What I see is Philip's insane claims of why his device should work and his obsession to show that it will, and your insane claims that it cannot work and your obsession to show that it cannot!
 
Where is this different?
One has learned from the past without exception and one has learned from the past with exception?
It looks to me that you would not waste time refuting Philip's claims if you were certain it could not work. If you were to do so, would this not be the greater insanity?
 
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on September 28, 2013, 04:03:15 AM
I'll assume you are talking to me.
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.
Quote
Where is this different?
In the fact that you're wrong.

Quote
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? 

Quote
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 main amount of refutation of Philip I've done is present some argument based on information theory.  How certain am I?  Pretty certain, assuming Philip's machine works the way he says it does.  If it doesn't well I can't very well refute an argument which has not been presented.  Now Philip could respond and clarify what he means and even refute what I've presented but the truth appears to be that he knows less than zero about information theory.  His main other claims are about his ability to earn a million dollars from Buddink.  Again, how certain was I?  Pretty certain but he made it easy but specifying a ridiculous time frame.  I appear to be right.  Other than that what further claims has Philip made?  Dates?  He has failed meeting his deadlines in just about every useful way.  I'm not sure if those are really claims per se.  Philip has shown himself to be a pretty terrible project manager so the idea that terrible project managers miss deadlines isn't exactly unexpected.

Anyway if you actually read this thread you'll see that I spend the majority of my time NOT refuting Philip.  He has nothing to say about my original argument probably because he doesn't understand it nor does he want to.  So your argument falls flat.  Most of my time is spent talking to you lot.  For example...

How you irrationally cling to exactly the same amount of confidence in Philip as you did when this thread started.
How you can't stand having him called a bad manager.
How you can't believe one of the more famous proofs in computer science.
How you defend him offering pr0n.
How nobody can stand up and say: "You think you can get $1m in a few months by earning $1 per caricature are you nuts?".
How you try to twist just about anything published by anyone into something validating Philip
...and most recently how you invent conspiracy theories about me having some kind of nefarious plan to sink or co-opt Philips non-existent technology.

That is why I keep coming back.  For the never ending freakshow.  Is that a waste of time?  It's better than watching Kitchen Nightmares IMHO.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on September 28, 2013, 06:03:33 AM
So, we again can see the obsession leaking through.
The ONLY thread, just think about that!
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?
It looks to me like doubt showing through.
Just saying.
 
The Karpen Pile is claimed to be a battery that has provided continuous energy for over 60 years, making it either a supremely effective method of storing energy or a hoax, furthermore some newspapers describe it as a perpetuum mobile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion), but most scientists disagree since such a device would violate the Second law of Thermodynamics. The device is housed at the Dimitrie Leonida National Technical Museum, and by 2010 it had been working there continuously for 60 years.
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on September 28, 2013, 04:03:20 PM
The ONLY thread, just think about that!
Over 200 posts in one thread and NONE in any other!
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. 

Speaking of which it's worth noting that a good portion of those 200 posts were spent attempting to convince one lumen of that very thing.  Which he still seems to not accept.   Even though if any piece of code existed which could do what he says.  It could be incorporated into another program and the output inverted.   This is not, as that stupid kid who's name I can't be bothered to look up thought resolvable by a single optimization because that would be essentially a different program and *that* program could be incorporated...etc...
'
Somehow in lumen-land that conversation makes me obsessed with proving Philip wrong rather than someone who simply has a certain degree of awe and wonder (and amusement) at people who are so deliberately dense.

Quote
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?

Saying that I'm just declaring something false isn't really a very accurate description of what's happening.  I'm *arguing* that various things are true or false.  Further argument can in fact make a position stronger.  Of course what's also happening here is that various people are arguing various stupid things (such as you and program termination) and I'm correcting them.  In which case sometimes things get repeated but often to respond to a particular argument like say when someone says that I must be a secret agent for the Oil companies and I say "I'm just here for laughs" and recount the arguments I found the most entertaining from this thread.

Quote
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?

Quote
The Karpen Pile is claimed
...and the rules about claiming something are far weaker than building something.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on September 28, 2013, 06:09:40 PM
From your reply it looks like, given a choice, you would rather talk about insulting people than their ideas.
 
Yes, the Karpen pile is a 60 year old claim, and always will be, because everyone finds it much easier to just look the other way.
 
2LOT was broken over 60 years ago, you just never saw that, and never will.
 
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on September 29, 2013, 03:19:38 AM
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. 
Quote

2LOT was broken over 60 years ago, you just never saw that, and never will.
How does this demonstrate that 2LOT was broken exactly?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on September 29, 2013, 03:34:59 AM
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 ego because you seem to be a bit bipolar, but I have bigger fish to fry.
 
The Karpen pile as it was called by others, or "the uniform-temperature thermoelectric pile," as he named it.
You might want to do just a bit of research on this before you fail at your goal as stated above.
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on September 29, 2013, 04:25:20 AM
I understand you goal to feel superior and really pump up your ego
I 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

Quote
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.

Quote
but I have bigger fish to fry.
Unlikely.
 
Quote
The Karpen pile as it was called by others, or "the uniform-temperature thermoelectric pile," as he named it.
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on September 29, 2013, 06:53:15 AM
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.
 
The Karpen pile is a uniform-temperature thermoelectric battery that produces substantial electrical output from an isothermal environment.
It's been doing this for over 60 years and is understood to be pulling energy from environmental heat and producing actual work running a small motor that works a switch that turns the motor on and off. The voltage is about 1 volt and to run a tiny motor to work a switch would require at least a few milliamps minimum. (assumption only data is left out)
 
Lord Kelvin has stated in the 2LOT that this would indeed be impossible, yet oops there it is!
In fact Karpen himself was sure this was impossible until......oops there it was!
So you sit there and claim Philip's idea to be impossible because he has tried for a few years to build it and the math shows it to be impossible, but yet you totally ignore the fact that the 2LOT theory was compromised by a device that has been running for over 60 years and shows that 2LOT is broken.(Lord kelvin was wrong in some areas)

In the end, the Karpen pile does exactly what Philip is trying to do, convert environmental heat directly to electrical energy.
I don't really expect you to understand this fact as actually a fact because you never will, just like I said, you never will! Not with only 60 years of proof, you will probably need at least another 60 years before you might consider it.
 
 oops, there it is!
 
Reverse Entropy ...... Hmmm, what's a better name for that!
Yportne! Yes that's it!

 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on September 29, 2013, 10:54:16 AM
yes lumen is correct.karpen systems have been built with hundreds times power densities of the original.they will flash l.e.d,s  permanently,power ipods permanently.in fact its imposible to drain their power or even weaken their power unless you break them up.the higher power density systems are  an obvious 2nd law interruption.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on September 29, 2013, 06:20:00 PM
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"

Quote
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?
Quote
It's been doing this for over 60 years
Apparently you believe it is doing this but again what's the evidence?
Quote
and is understood to be pulling energy from environmental heat
Again this seems to be your belief but again what is the evidence?

Quote
ltage is about 1 volt and to run a tiny motor to work a switch would require at least a few milliamps minimum. 
Lord Kelvin has stated in the 2LOT that this would indeed be impossible, yet oops there it is!
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

Quote
So you sit there and claim Philip's idea to be impossible because he has tried for a few years to build it
No 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. :)

Quote
and the math shows it to be impossible, but yet you totally ignore the fact that the 2LOT theory was compromised
So 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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on September 29, 2013, 06:24:13 PM
Quote
that produces substantial electrical output

Quote
The voltage is about 1 volt and to run a tiny motor to work a switch would require at least a few milliamps minimum.

Quote
karpen systems have been built with hundreds times power densities of the original.they will flash l.e.d,s  permanently,power ipods permanently

As far as I am concerned you guys are way off base.

For starters you are jumping to a conclusion when the data is not all in.  The experiment is not necessarily over, the setup could die in 10 years or 50 years, it's undetermined.  I have read about it before, and I did a few quick reads today.  The setup itself is shrouded in mystery and is not even being shown publicly.  I believe that the argument is that it's "too expensive" to create a space to put the device on display and in my opinion that's simply not credible.  There is always the possibility that somebody is doing this intentionally because they perceive that it's in the interest of the institution.  The mystery creates buzz and the publicity is good.

On the technical side, this "motor" device does not make any contact with the Karpen pile for some amount of time.  I don't know the exact figure, it might be 10 seconds, it might be a minute.  I am just not up to doing the searching an the reading again.  When the contact is finally made, it's made for a fraction of a second and the motor has a "tick."  Then the process starts all over again.  That's a far cry from your characterizations above.

When contact is made, the amount of energy discharged might be a hundredth of a millijoule - we don't know.  When you average out the power consumption, it might be in sub microwatt range.  I am just throwing the numbers out there, because I am not sure if the institution is putting out any numbers.  One more time, it's all shrouded in mystery.  What I firmly believe is that my characterization is much closer to reality than the characterizations quoted above.

We all know the phenomenon where when the batteries in a flashlight are "dead" if you wait a few days the flashlight will work again for a short amount of time.  If you are willing to do the test, with "dead" batteries you could have a circuit that makes a LED flash for a millisecond, waits a minute, and then makes the LED flash for a millisecond and repeats.  There is a decent chance that a setup like that could run for months on end.  This is all hypothetical for illustrative purposes.  The point being that when a battery is disconnected, the battery has a chance to "regroup" and provide a short burst of power representing a minuscule amount of energy before it needs to rest and regroup again.

So, going back to the Karpen pile, it's a distinct possibility that there is indeed the chemical energy available to run it for more than 60 or 70 or 80 years.  It's just a question of doing the proper number crunching.  But lo and behold, to the best of my recollection the institute that has the hidden Karpen pile will not permit this to be done.

Therefore, we simply don't know - period.  We can't say that it's in violation of the 2LOT.   We can't say all the numbers for the available chemical energy vs. the average power consumption are readily available so we can't say anything about that either.  We don't know one way or the other.  Who cares that it has allegedly run for 60 years non stop, it doesn't mean anything.

What we do know is a little tiny button cell might be able to run a watch for 2 1/2 years.  So if you had 30 tiny little button cells, something that could easily fit in the palm of your hand, and if they had a very very long shelf life when stored properly, then they could power a watch for 75 years.  At least that is food for thought.

MileHigh
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on September 29, 2013, 07:18:52 PM
He (the keeper) took the system out of it's secured shelf and allowed the specialists to measure its output with a digital multimeter.
This happened on Feb. 27, 2006, and the batteries had indicated the same 1Volt as back in 1950.
 
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 Karpen pile 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.
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.
Just because the inventor, who was very well respected in that time, makes the claim that it runs on environmental heat, and that no one else can determine the source of energy, does not make it true right?
 
Or even the fact that you can lead a horse to water but..........
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.
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on September 30, 2013, 12:58:47 AM
@milehigh.. Let me be more specific.the karpen pile in the romanian museum works precisely according to text-book predictions of voltage change with oxygen gas saturation differences on oxygen gas electrodes in  line with the nernst equasion.ie.it behaves appropriately as we would expect a pair oxygen gas electrodes to behave.whats your complaint now.how dare you come here on this thread and tell us that the standard chemistry textbooks are wrong.how dare you.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on September 30, 2013, 04:52:55 AM
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
Just because the inventor, who was very well respected in that time,
A combination of "how do you measure that?" and "who cares?".

Quote
makes the claim that it runs on environmental heat
And that's good evidence because claims are hard to make right?...oh wait no they're not. :)

Quote
and that no one else can determine the source of energy
Man do you try hard to brainwash yourself...one of your more amusing traits.

As far as I see nobody, other than nutcases like you actually care about it.  So yes, if everyone in the field was trying hard to figure this thing out that might have some significance in terms of evidence but when hardly anyone important is trying. It's not really as impressive as you would like to believe.  There are lots of things that nobody tries to figure out - I have a power source in my pool shed.  Nobody knows what it is either.  Does that somehow make it *more* credible as a 2LOT violation in your tiny, tiny mind?

Not only that but it appears that it's something that nobody can examine.  Again saying "nobody can figure this out" to something that hardly anyone is allowed to see isn't really that impressive.
 
Quote
Or even the fact that you can lead a horse to water but..........
And for sarky as I said before......."and never will"!
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.
 
Quote
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

This was kind of fun, but I think if you go back to your original plan of trying to convince yourself there's some conspiracy between Philip and myself it will be more fun.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on September 30, 2013, 11:04:04 AM
 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 mystery @lumen. gold and platinum,2 different work functions,2 different absorption capacities for oxygen gas. karpen pile = quenco.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on September 30, 2013, 03:46:05 PM
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.

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.

Quote
@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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on September 30, 2013, 04:12:12 PM
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?

I think you might want to look into this a bit further as even Karpen himself was a firm believer in 2LOT.
 
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.
According to the patent, the Karpen pile will drop in temperature when used, indicating the consumption of environmental heat.
 
 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.
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on September 30, 2013, 04:59:13 PM
even Karpen himself was a firm believer in 2LOT.
Again equal parts "How do you measure that?" and "Why would that be important?"
Quote

I see someone on youtube has replicated a Karpen pile.
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.
Quote
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....
Quote
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?
Quote

Karpen has given may ways to construct his device and some are very easy to build with inexpensive materials.
Let me guess.  The cheap ones produce a smaller effect and it's poorly measured and all the evidence is on youtube... :D

Quote
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...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on September 30, 2013, 06:17:44 PM
@sarkeizen what is observed is a common electrode concentration cell man.now please explain where do you have a problem with this.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 under section: electrode concentration cells,and tell us what issue you have with what is written.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on September 30, 2013, 06:58:27 PM
Don't bother profitis, sarky is only here to win arguments. He cares nothing about any facts
.
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!
A bit strange, but whatever!
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on September 30, 2013, 07:36:29 PM
well lumen,if he,s 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on September 30, 2013, 09:31:59 PM
@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.

So far, all you're doing is begging the question.

Quote
dispute the laws of electrochemistry
Can 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.

Again, separate what is actually observed as opposed to what you prefer to imagine is going on.

Quote
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?

Quote
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).

Which of course makes the price of believing in whatever you really want to believe in, the ability to be able to rationally believe in anything else.  In other words, the price of being irrational is your rationality.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on September 30, 2013, 10:36:54 PM
@sarkeizen 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?what is your complaint exactly because you are quite vague on this textbook issue.please dont digress now and stay focused .you are questioning the laws of physics as you are implying that the karpen concentration cell is not compliant with textbook rules under subsection 'electrode concentration cells' so you either agree with these rules or disagree with these rules,which is it?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on September 30, 2013, 11:38:46 PM
@sarkeizen no need to observe
The 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.

Quote
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).

Quote
please dont digress now
ROFL. I'm trying to stem your digression.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 01, 2013, 12:14:36 AM
@sarkeizen forget about what lumen said and listen to what the textbooks say please.i dont understand your need to discuss the 2lot anyway as our main concern should be that the thing will do consistent useful work for us permanently and at no expense,indifferent to temperature gradient or no temperature gradient,not so?again im going to ask you,do you agree with textbook rules under subsection 'electrode concentration cells' yes or no because if you dont then i cannot prove to you that work function differentials are a permanent source of voltage and current,as they are in quenco.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on October 01, 2013, 12:51:56 AM
@profitis,
Don't you see that everything sarky reads is true, without testing or proof, where everything you read is nothing real because you have no proof.
 
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.
Like I said, he knows nothing about chemistry, or engineering, or science,  he only recites theory.
Whatever........
 
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 01, 2013, 01:15:44 AM
@lumen thats perfectly understandable yes but when he starts to disagree with the rules governing concentration cells then he steps out of line.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 01, 2013, 01:32:07 AM
@lumen what also bugs me is that he is more concerned with the 2lot than with the economic viability of the thing.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 01, 2013, 01:35:39 AM
@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.
Quote
i dont understand your need to discuss the 2lot anyway
Ever 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.

Quote
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.
Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Quote
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".

The fact that without math every field you've listed would be pretty hampered it's interesting that you want to denigrate it so.   Math  relies on so few assumptions compared to any physical science that it's not unreasonable that mathematical theorems would be more soundly proven than something in physics.

Quote
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?

Is that an example of the logic I can expect from you?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on October 01, 2013, 02:07:51 AM
Well sarky, maybe you could use your math to figure out where you went wrong!
 
@profitis   If you need anything custom designed or build to advance your cell, I may be able to help.
 
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 01, 2013, 02:44:38 AM
@sarkeizen dont be clever now,we both know that no schoolbook is going to paragraph a 'how to bust 2lot' manual but yeah sure,chek out the subsection titled 'electrode concentration cells' and simply apply to the oxygen electrode and away you go.this thread isnt about 2lot.its about wether quenco works and is useful or not.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 01, 2013, 02:50:36 AM
thanx @lumen.i,l drop a pm sometime.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 01, 2013, 05:11:44 AM
Quote
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.

In short: You're being useless.  Snap out of it and be useful.

**So for example, you could cite specifically where I am wrong and provide an iron clad argument demonstrating that I am wrong.  Instead you whined like an infant.

@sarkeizen dont be clever now
It's a habit that's hard to break.
Quote
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. :-)

Seriously though, what I'm doing is pointing out the problem with (or what will become the problem with) your argument.  A naive reading of your argument was: "It's so incredibly simple and obvious, a hammerstien** pile is going to give us power forever because it follows some set of rules which I won't cite but clearly imply power forever".

**I'm just too lazy to look up the dudes name, as far as I'm concerned the dude and the mythos surrounding his battery is annoying enough I would probably kick him in the groin many many times if he wasn't dead.  He deserves it.

a) Whatever is in that thing in that museum office you probably can't say with a useful degree of certainty what it is.
b) However much power that thing is putting out you probably can't say with a useful degree of certainty what that is.

Now regardless of whether we are talking about 2LOT or simply a really good battery is irrelevant at this point since those are exactly the two things you need to know in order to make the argument.

c) When someone says "X clearly implies Y" in the context of "but the consensus of in-field scientists do not agree" (where a field is a generally recognized field not say "orgonomy").  Then it's rational to think that it's more likely that they are wrong.
d) If these rules are so common and completely clear, then you should be able to cite them in just about any number of textbooks.   I could then go down to my library and read the cite for myself and be convinced.   The fact that you probably can't indicates that things are likely more complicated than you make them out to be and again which makes you the likely culprit of being wrong rather than the rest of the field.

Quote
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.

And while I'm telling you get off my lawn...learn to capitalize.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 01, 2013, 10:55:00 AM
@sarkeizen i repeat. this thread is about the commercial viability of the aforementioned quenco.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?regarding my aforementioned referal to the subsection of textbooks,if you dont have the electrochemistry knowledge to see the connection and hence build the friggn thing then just say so instead of standing there and blabbering on a tangent that is of no help or use in our quest for commercialy viable solutions to our energy needs..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 01, 2013, 02:54:42 PM
@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.

In my experience among humans when someone is talking about 2LOT because they were asked: "Hey did you know 2LOT has been broken for 60 years?" we do not require further justification to be involved in the discussion.  It's self-evident as part of the social contract.  Perhaps in your town or, more likely cell-block people jump up and say "You're not allowed to talk about that".   If such positions existed outside of the despotic state where you grew up.  I assure you that they have been largely retired or shived as the case required.
Quote
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.

**still too lazy.

Since I'm apparently supposed to guess the question you are going to ask and answer it.  You may consider it germane that I also have no strong views on penguins intermarrying with elephants.  I believe in love in all its forms.

Quote
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
That 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.

Quote
regarding my aforementioned referal to the subsection of textbooks,if you dont have the electrochemistry knowledge to see the connection
Score 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.

I say: "Sure, ok lets look at textbooks, show me where" and now you are mute on the subject.  Not a word about which part of which well known textbook.  Not a peep.  Nothing.  I've given in to your despotic demand to no longer talk about 2LOT (except where I am defending my prior conversations about 2LOT and if you have a problem with that you've graduated from idiot to troll).  I've even given in to your despotic demand to focus on textbooks.   The only tiny request I made is that you show me *WHERE* I can find this information in a mainstream text.  Where are the ten rules of battery making (or 13 or 127 whatever) clearly laid out.

And your answer is: "..."

Quote
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 01, 2013, 03:41:19 PM
@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? I gues in your case yes,which is a pity because if you had taken the trouble to go to your electrochemist friend and asked him to refer to the mentioned textbook subsection and build an oxygen electrode concentration cell for you you might have been given one for free.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 01, 2013, 04:13:14 PM
@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.

Again to further your integration back into human society,  normal humans do not need further justification to discuss 2LOT.  Being on a board about 2LOT violations is enough, being asked a question (even when *gasp* you are NOT on a board about 2LOT) is enough.  We do not all live in the police state that is (apparently) in your head.

Anyways...

So should I now infer that you have backed away from the argument isn't that there is something in a textbook somewhere that says you can power something forever in an isothermal environment?  That seemed to be what you were saying before.  Now you're saying the textbook only can tell me how to build a battery that will last 30 years in a mild duty-cycle in a non-isothermal environment?

Well...um...so?  We already have things that do that.  I been to sites with 23 year old solar panels and I've definitely heard of 30 year old panels.  While the cells used in calculators 20-25 years ago were lower quality than the ones I'm talking about it seems plausible that a 20 year old calculator would work today.  So you're going to have to qualify your argument more...eventually we will see it's weakness and I will pounce like a puma.

Quote
if you had taken the trouble to go to your electrochemist friend
I don't have such a friend.

...and you kept saying "look at the textbooks" and "powered forever" and you still can't give me a cite.   Considering I've given in to all of your despotic demands that's a little unfair don't you think?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 01, 2013, 06:50:19 PM
@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.dont go thinking that an oxygen electrode concentration cell is piddlywinks.they can pack a powerpunch baby,ive seen it.ok lets chat about 2lot since your not going to stop bugging me about it 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.find a friend to build one for you and chek it out.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 01, 2013, 07:51:56 PM
@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?

What about your argument that there is something in a textbook which validates....ok....whatever your argument is now?   Am I supposed to take your avoiding the question as evidence that you no longer think textbooks say anything about this?  Why are you trying so hard to avoid talking about the argument you wanted to discuss so very badly just a day ago?!

Quote
ok lets chat about 2lot since your not going to stop bugging me about it
What?  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.

Quote
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)).
 
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 01, 2013, 08:24:17 PM
@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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on October 01, 2013, 08:27:51 PM
The problem I have is that everything falls under information theory.
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.

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.
 
Then all systems that separate in any method more energetic atoms from the norm, would fall under information theory.
 
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.
 
So now that we know that entropy does not work, ahh....well.....I suppose nothing works.
Or, maybe not everything falls under information theory!
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 01, 2013, 08:51:33 PM
@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). 

So aren't you just running away from the argument by creating an arbitrary requirement that you know I can't meet?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
iii) Then all systems that separate in any method more energetic atoms from the norm, would fall under information theory.

Quote
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.

Magic.  You created an argument.  How unlike you.  I suspect your statement iv) has an error in it.  However it's pretty vague.  Please show, using an example how the energetic atoms end up in a separate container.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 01, 2013, 09:53:29 PM
@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 basis,sound familiar? Smooth platinum foil has a different work function than rough platinum foil therefore a different amount of oxygen gas saturates their surfaces under same conditions giving rise to an constant electrical potential difference.ie.quenco works. 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 01, 2013, 11:03:02 PM
@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 basis
How 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. 

Just as an aside isn't it strange you now seem really really interested in the very thing you just a few posts back mocked and harassed me for talking about.  You also accused me of deliberately attempting to shift the focus of the thread.   So now that you're focusing on it, does that make your behavior suspicious?

Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 01, 2013, 11:23:07 PM
@sarkeizen look,go build it,chek if its 2lot compliant and come back to me in the morning ne? You suckered me away from commercial viability issues into a 2lot discussion and now you want to cross-examine my knowledge? Disgusting.from now on i will only discuss commercial viability of this class of devices.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 01, 2013, 11:49:56 PM
@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.

Second let's recap your argument...
Quote
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. 
Quote
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 mystery
It creates power forever though completely standard physics.
Quote
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.
Quote
.its written and predicted in  textbooks under section 'electrode concentration cells'
In a section about electrode concentration cells.
Quote
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.

Now all of the above seems really straight-forward and seems to be a violation of 2LOT.  However I keep getting harassed by Profitis about mentioning 2LOT.  So I clarify:
Quote
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
But the response is...
Quote
forget about what lumen said and listen to what the textbooks
So I'm game...
Quote
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..
Quote
no schoolbook is going to paragraph a 'how to bust 2lot' manual
Wait, 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...
Quote
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...
Quote
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
Huh?! All of a sudden we have moved from powering iPods FOREVER to powering calculators for 30 years.  After that it just turns into
Quote
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...

Quote
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.

Now we could imagine that Philip has actually created some kind of more efficient thermocouple or better battery.   However the problem with that is that we would be discussing the merits of something that is PURELY IMAGINARY.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 02, 2013, 12:40:43 AM
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? 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 if you want your answers,you have no choice.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 02, 2013, 01:21:09 AM
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.

You said:
Quote
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

and later

Quote
yes its a maxwell demon.no temperature difference required between the two electrodes in any particular direction.

This sounds like you know there is a section of a textbook that indicates that a Gomer Pile will run forever in an isothermal environment.  If you CITE - that is provide the pages where this is stated - from a reasonably well-known textbook.  I will find a copy and read it and if it is as clear as you seem to imply.  I will understand and reverse my position.

Quote
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?
Quote
if you want your answers,you have no choice
ROFL.  Actually you're wrong.  The only question I wanted an answer to is: Do you have a good argument.

So far, you don't. :D In fact you are making Lumen look good.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 02, 2013, 01:40:29 AM
@sarkeizen so you dont want to build it,chek it out in a isothermal environment and show us that it works like a quenco,sigh ok, go to your textbook right now and tell me when you are there by the page dealing with concentration cells.we,re going to go through this together it seems because if you were an electrochemist you wouldve immediately seen that an O2 cell,just,cant,run out of fuel,ever.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 02, 2013, 02:33:38 AM
@sarkeizen so you dont want to build it,chek it out in a isothermal environment and show us that it works like a quenco
You are a massive idiot twice over now.

Why would I even own an isotherm bath?  What would "works like a quenco" mean?  Produce a voltage in an isothermal environment?  A 9v would do that but it wouldn't run forever.  How would I test that something "runs forever"?  How long does it have to run before we conclude that it runs forever?

It's no wonder that you are easily convinced if this is all the rigor you can muster.

Quote
go to your textbook right now and tell me when you are there by the page dealing with concentration cells
What 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?

Hilarious. 

Quote
if you were an electrochemist you wouldve immediately seen that an O2 cell,just,cant,run out of fuel,ever.

Yawn...let me guess.  It's an argument by special definition.  "run out of fuel" doesn't actually mean "continually run forever" whereas a quenco if Philip is right (and to let you in on the ending he's very probably wrong) a quenco would constantly do work in an isothermal environment.

Oh hey..I'm a Sr. Member now.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on October 02, 2013, 03:11:52 AM
But...buddink.com is still down. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 02, 2013, 04:37:14 AM
@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.every single electrode potential is governed by the nernst equasion,thats the rules and im going to watch carefully if you try to bend them to suit your mood.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 02, 2013, 06:14:59 AM
@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.
Quote
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...

You spent at least three or four posts harassing me about talking about 2LOT because on your planet that's allowed or something.
You then spent a few posts ignoring my repeated requests for textbook references.
You then spent about three posts insisting I build something I couldn't possibly test usefully.  Even going so far as to assert unequivocally that I can have no answers until I do.
Now I suspect we will go back and forth for a bit because you didn't read that I don't have a textbook.  Do electrochemists or people pretending to have some expertise in electrochemistry not know how to read?

All of your twisting and turning and moving the goal posts and changing your thesis and *I'm* the one that's displaying some duplicity?

Exactly how much do you drink before posting?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 02, 2013, 12:06:17 PM
@sarkeizen dont be a dunce,i just cited the nernst equasion man.of all the things i chose to CITE to prove that your hammerstein pile works as hammerstein advertised i go and choose the friggn cornerstone formula for batteries in general.you are now beginning to look like a nutcase.i repeat,please apply the nernst equasion to the hammerstein pile and come back,i,l wait here for you to build it ok?chek it out ok? Chek if it fits with that formula  ne?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 02, 2013, 01:00:05 PM
@sarkeizen youre realy beginning to look like a nincampoop.either you will go and build a common O2 concentration cell,chek it out thoroughly,or you wont.did you know that there are electrodes on the market to measure O2 concentrations at different depths of ocean water that use the hammerstein method?take two of those  electrodes and build a hammerstein pile.hammerstein said that it works in a isothermal bath so if you dont have a isothermal bath to test that part of the advert out thats your problem not mine.meantime we use hammerstein power for our calculators and get on with our lives.we dont care about isothermal baths.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 02, 2013, 03:41:00 PM
...we dont have time for isothermal baths as you do.we either listen to hammerstein,s advert for a button cell that lasts 30years or we go buy a regular button cell that may or may not self-discharge after 2years..we care only that our calculator works at anytime,at any place,without fizzing out on us..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 02, 2013, 03:51:36 PM
@sarkeizen dont be a dunce,i just cited the nernst equasion man.of all the things i chose to CITE
Dude.  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. 

Quote
Assertion: A vector space over m of vectors v1, v2, ..., vn in V is a basis iff it is linearly independent and complete.

I could just do the proof for you right here but for the sake of brevity I can say:
Quote
Page 10, Linear Algebra Done Wrong, Sergei Treil, Department of Mathematics, Brown University

Why not just admit you don't have a textbook - even after harping on what the textbooks say.  That's pretty hilarious but it doesn't disprove your point per se.

Anyway the obvious reason to want a cite is that the person asking wants to look at something in context. What good is an equation if I don't have something that explains the terms and assumptions.  Otherwise I could just say e^(pi * i) + 1 = 0 therefore you're wrong.  Perhaps in, whatever field you are in "rigor" is unheard of.   If there's one thing I understand, significantly better than you: plugging numbers into formulae doesn't necessarily mean anything. :D

Quote
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?

Quote
hammerstein said that it works in a isothermal bath
Dude,  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.

Quote
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. 

Profitis: There is a theory in just about every Physics textbook that says you can change a mouse into a magic mouse.
Normal Person: Ok, where does it say that? How was it tested and are you sure you are interpreting the text correctly?
Profitis: You have to feed a normal mouse *magic beans*
Normal Person: Wait. What? You just said it's in every textbook.  Why can't you just tell me where.
Profitis: Look either you will feed a mouse magic beans or you won't.
Normal Person: Granted.  However I don't have any magic beans.  I don't even have any regular beans.  Your argument was that this information is available in a textbook.
Profitis: Well just plug "mouse" into the floobar equation.
Normal Person: That's not what I asked for.  Clearly there are problems with just putting numbers into something you don't understand.  Babbage knew this over a hundred years ago.
Profitis: Look you should just feed the mouse some magic beans.  It's not my problem that you don't have any.
Normal Person: Seriously? Your argument was X is in a textbook.  It sure seems like switching your argument after I show some interest is your problem and not mine.
Profitis: If you do what I say you will have a magic mouse and then you can test it.
Normal Person: What?  How would I even do that.  Your statement is so insanely vague that I'm not even sure it's even a testable assertion.
Profitis: It's not my problem that you don't have a magic tester...

Normal Person: Oh come on.  Now you sound like you're trying to get out of the argument on a technicality.

Quote
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?
Quote
we either listen to hammerstein,s advert for a button cell that lasts 30years
I 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.
Quote
or we go buy a regular button cell that may or may not self-discharge after 2years
Actually that's a false dichotomy but anyway...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 02, 2013, 05:59:32 PM
@sarkeizen no you are the complainant not me thus you have to work out if its a 2lot discrepency or not,sorry,thats your baby.i told you im only interested in hammersteins commercial viability.i said go to the textbook,apply its rules to build a common O2 concentration cell and check if it powers your calculator for 30years.i didnt say go to the textbook for a paragraph  interfering with 2lot.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 02, 2013, 07:03:27 PM
@sarkeizen no you are the complainant not me
Yawn.  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.

Like it or not.  You appeared to claim that some kind of cell would power something forever.  You also seemed to claim that it's getting it's power from ambient heat.    If you're not claiming both of those things then fine you're not claiming anything about 2LOT however your device - whatever it is - would have nothing to do with Quenco.  Which does claim to turn ambient heat into electricity.

Quote
a 2lot discrepency or not,sorry,thats your baby
Either 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.

Quote
i told you im only interested in hammersteins commercial viability.
Irrelevant.  You either made a claim or you didn't.  Now speak up.

Quote
i said go to the textbook
I simply asked: "Which textbook?".   Why can't you answer that?  Are you just BSing me?

Quote
apply its rules to build a common O2 concentration cell
See, 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?

Quote
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?

Seriously.  Are you an idiot?  I mean.  How does any of that strike you as reasonable?  I'd love to hear it.
Quote
i didnt say go to the textbook for a paragraph  interfering with 2lot
You 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?"

How many quotes, plays or musical numbers do you need to see that...

i) You made claims.
ii) I want to validate the CLAIMS YOU MADE.
iii) You are refusing to provide the evidence you said was readily available.
iv) You have invented an almost entirely IRRELEVANT set of hoops to jump through.

Do you really see your behavior as conducive to discussing your claims?  Seriously?

In the future if you don't want to discuss your claims.   How about: Don't post them on a discussion board.

Moron.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 02, 2013, 07:58:34 PM
@sarkeizen i made a claim that a O2 concentration cell will power your calculator for 30 years(somebody is going to break it,pet dog,kids,angry neibor etc) and that it works on exactly the same principal as quenco(an electron concentration cell). i did not make a claim that either quenco or hammerstein is a 2lot violation,however when i was asked by you if it is a 2lot violation(after being suckered into your courtroom)i gave an answer in the affirmative.i gave an answer,i did not claim.big big difference.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.now you want me to come back into YOUR courtroom to face more of your crap instead of just building the thing and testing it?disgusting. yes the textbook will tell you how to build a quenco-hammerstein cell that will absolutely work.it will not tell you how to violate 2lot,are we clear now?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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 02, 2013, 08:54:03 PM
@sarkeizen i made a claim that a O2 concentration cell will power your calculator for 30 years
Nope.  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.

Permanently.  Impossible.  Those are pretty strong claims.
Are you saying that such a claim, when true in an isothermal environment does not NECESSTATE a 2LOT violation?  If they do.  How is that different than claiming this device violates 2LOT.
Quote
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?

Quote
i did not make a claim that either quenco or hammerstein is a 2lot violation
Ok 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?

Quote
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".
This forces me to ask again.  Are you stupid?

Quote
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.

Quote
now you want me to come back into YOUR courtroom
If 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.

Quote
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.

Other claims were that in some textbook somewhere there is information that validates some device which will power something like an iPod FOREVER.  I'd simply like to know which textbook and where in it.  This again amongst humans is a pretty reasonable question.   Why don't you answer it?  Really.  Why?

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Seriously dude.  I'm asking you to answer ONE question which was posed - AT YOUR BEHEST (you said to focus on the textbooks).  How is it that you are singularly useless at answering it?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 02, 2013, 09:59:29 PM
@sarkeizen i already told you dude.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 cell,test it on your calculator for permanent number of years.what part of this process dont you a)understand b)get.. 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?..?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 02, 2013, 10:31:28 PM
@sarkeizen i already told you dude
Wrong as usual...

Yous said:
Quote
.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.

You have not told me where, precisely this cell that will power something forever in an isothermal environment is written and predicted.   You said these things now man up.

Quote
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 cell
You 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.

Quote
test it on your calculator for permanent number of years.what part of this process dont you
The 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".

Again, your words.  You said this.  Why are you being so evasive about showing me something you claimed you could answer.

Also unless you're a moron, you would realize that your test wouldn't demonstrate a 2LOT violation.

Quote
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.

On the upside I'm sure I'll be a "hero member" in no time since Profitis will probably keep dancing and squirming for weeks.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 02, 2013, 11:34:02 PM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 03, 2013, 12:30:55 AM
@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:

Quote
.its written and predicted in  textbooks under section 'electrode concentration cells'

So please cite the textbook.  I mean that's what you said.  So if you didn't lie.  It should be in a textbook.  Predicting a cell that will power an iPod forever.  Right?  That's what you said right?  So if you weren't being deceptive.  Then you should be able to point to a textbook that predicts this.  Right?  You said written and predicted in a textbook.  So, because I think you're an honest person.  I'd expect you to be able to produce a cite from a mainstream textbook and then you can tell me where.

Simple.  If you were being very honest.  If you were being less than honest you might dance around a lot and try any which way to avoid answering the question. 

But I have faith. :D ... as my post count skyrockets. :D


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 03, 2013, 01:14:30 AM
@sarkeizen even more predicted..E= qM + §MSu..where q is the work function and E is the electrode potential thus Eo2 (a)-Eo2 (b) =qM (a)- qM (b) = E hammerstein.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 03, 2013, 02:22:00 AM
@sarkeizen replenished: O + 2H+ +2e- = H2O(cathode E=nF+RTln aO2 + work function platinum).H2O = O + 2H+ + 2e-(anode E=nF +RTln aO2 + work function gold). E hammerstein =work function gold -work function platinum
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 03, 2013, 02:32:54 AM
@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
Quote
.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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 03, 2013, 02:13:42 PM
 the scary bit E hammerstein =E Pt-O(ads) - E Au-O(ads) simplifies Equenco= EAu-EPt
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 03, 2013, 04:02:57 PM
the scary bit E hammerstein =E Pt-O(ads) - E Au-O(ads) simplifies Equenco= EAu-EPt

But you said...

Quote
.its written and predicted in  textbooks under section 'electrode concentration cells'

So where is it?  So far you just seem to be doing yet another dance to avoid the question that you wanted me to ask and kind of making yourself out to be a liar in the process.

Not to mention that your notation is so unbearably bad it's like reading a kindergartners (and your usual all-too deliberate typing style doesn't help).  I suspect you're just copying something from a free energy web page or just making crap up.  I mean is "§" a wreath product, a selection, a summation sign, a definite integral, a contour integral, a partial integral, a scilicet or simply an admission you don't know what you're talking about?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 03, 2013, 04:41:51 PM
@sarkeizen woooo! you want to be my schoolteacher now? Kinky but not my thing thanks.just go to an average chem textbook and use it to help you build an O2 concentration cell and test it thoroughly,and i mean thoroughly.if you dont want to build it you can draw it ie.draw a standard diagrammed concentration cell and chek if it runs forever ON PAPER to your satisfaction since you absolutely and stubbornly refuse to build the frikkn thing.fair enough?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 03, 2013, 05:56:28 PM
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?
Quote
just go to an average chem textbook and use it to help you build
What?  Back to building again? You see for some reason I thought you said:
Quote
.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.

Quote
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.

The only reason I bothered asking you anything was i) because you whined like an infant about my talking about 2LOT (then you turned around and talked about it as much or more yourself even when it was clearly not the topic at hand) and ii) because you said a textbook predicted it, that we should focus on the textbooks.  Here I am trying to do that and all you're doing is avoiding some pretty important questions to do just that.

Why are you avoiding the question?

Quote
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.

It's not being stubborn.  It's just holding you to your word.  There is no value to the question at hand in building it, there is no value to the question at hand for you to constantly try to sidetrack the conversation into building it.

Quote
fair enough?
No.  You said...

Quote
.its written and predicted in  textbooks under section 'electrode concentration cells'

Again, nowhere does this say that I need to build anything.  If you want to withdraw this statement then just say so or perhaps you were stretching the truth a bit.  Just man up and say so.

and just stop being a dick about it.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 03, 2013, 07:05:59 PM
@sarkeizen..written E=nF +RTln C(a). Predicted E=nF +RTln C(O2). translation: this formula,applied to every single battery electrode predicts that the voltage of an O2 electrode will be directly proportional to the concentration of O2 on that electrode.it predicts that we can build a cell with 2 O2 electrodes with 2 different O2 concentrations on them.we use such electrodes as indicators for aquarium O2 levels,oceanic O2 levels because their voltage is directly proportional to their O2 concentration.we use these electrodes in zinc-air batteries too.if we cover the air vent of a zinc-air cell we see the voltage come down,why?because the O2 concentration drops at the air electrode @sarkeizen,predicted again,by E=nF+RTln CO2.if ocean scientists want to use this  formula to predict their O2 concentrations why dont you want to use it to predict O2 concentration cells? 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 03, 2013, 08:19:58 PM
@sarkeizen..to summarize,that formula predicts the possibility of construction of a quenco cell..if you cant see it get a friend to translate it,this given quenco predicting formula found in textbooks.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 03, 2013, 09:46:09 PM
@sarkeizen..written
But not in a textbook that I can see...please supply the cite of a well-known textbook after all you said.
Quote
.its written and predicted in  textbooks under section 'electrode concentration cells'
Anything else is deceptive and kind of lying.

After all you said to "focus on the textbook" I can't do that if you won't tell me the textbook you are allegedly quoting from. (A quote is not a cite, as it does not give the location of the quote).
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 03, 2013, 11:13:34 PM
not so fast @sarkeizen.you owe me.you had me running around like a jumping bean the last 48hrs trying to get it to your skull that that formula is predictive of quenco-hammerstein.now i demand that you help me integrate some textbook formulas,specificly work functions into the O2 electrode potential as then we will have a formula not only predicting a hammersteinquenco but for a hammersteinquenco.in fact we may even have a constant somewhere in there.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 04, 2013, 12:57:45 AM
not so fast @sarkeizen.you owe me.you had me running around like a jumping bean the last 48hrs
In 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.

Quote
now i demand that
Yawn. Quit trolling and just produce a proper cite.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 04, 2013, 02:44:55 AM
@sarkeizen you can chek out wikipaedia articles on 'concentration cell','oxygen sensor',or 'nernst equation'.wikipaedia is pretty much to be trusted so.. The articles 'concentration cell' and 'oxygen sensor' both give direct discussions on the relation of O2 concentration and voltage.quit yawning and help me with these formulae,it just occured to me that i can prove a 2lot violation using them via the  T part of the nernst equasion.(stands for temperature).
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 04, 2013, 04:04:53 AM
Yawn.  Quit trolling. You said that a cell which powers something like a iPhone forever was written and predicted in all and every textbook on electrochemistry.  This should make it easy to provide a cite from a textbook :D 

Incidentally I've asked you for a cite thirteen times and you have provided none.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 04, 2013, 04:46:07 AM
@sarkeizen wait im going in for the kill..E hammerstein = RTln/nF * CO2a/CO2b which proves beyond all doubt that the electrical potential arises across both O2 electrodes at a singular uniform temperature.we need to integrate work function differentials as they are responsible for O2 differentials.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 04, 2013, 04:49:59 AM
@sarkeizen in other words,the oxygen potential on platinum is different than the oxygen potential on gold by exactly the work function difference between platinum and gold..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 04, 2013, 04:56:48 AM
Yawn.  Quit trolling. You said that a cell which powers something like a iPhone forever was written and predicted in all and every textbook on electrochemistry.  This should make it easy to provide a cite from a textbook :D 

Incidentally I've asked you for a cite fourteen times and you have provided none. :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 04, 2013, 05:00:51 AM
@sarkeizen in other words the system has to shift oxygen gas electrochemicaly in order to even the difference in work function potentials since neither platinum nor gold can go into solution..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 04, 2013, 05:10:16 AM
!!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 04, 2013, 05:37:34 AM
Yawn.  Quit trolling. You said that a cell which powers something like a iPhone forever was written and predicted in all and every textbook on electrochemistry.  This should make it easy to provide a cite from a textbook :D 

Incidentally I've asked you for a cite fifteen times and you have provided none. :D :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 04, 2013, 06:42:26 PM
no problem @sarkeizen heres a CITE from the wikipaedia article on the nernst equasion i,l organise a textbook later i promise:E=RTln/nF* a A/a B and predicted E karpenquenco cell = RTln/nF * a(Oads)1/a(Oads)2 where concentrations of adsorbed species have been substituted by the more correct activities(a) of adsorbed species.you can see that a voltage arises at uniform temperature.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 04, 2013, 06:55:50 PM
@sarkeizen if we use two identical platinum electrodes at different depths in a glass of acid or a glass of ocean it becomes classical Eprofitis-wikipaedia =RTln/nF * CO2a/CO2b.in this case the O2 potential affects the work function of the respective electrode and since the depth difference is a constant the voltage becomes a constant.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 04, 2013, 07:49:37 PM
Yawn.  Quit trolling. You said that a cell which powers something like a iPhone forever was written and predicted in all and every textbook on electrochemistry.  This should make it easy to provide a cite from a textbook :D 

Incidentally I've asked you for a cite sixteen times and you have provided none. :D :D :D

(In case you forgot to read my post about what a cite is.  Here's what one looks like: 1. Christine Stansell, American Moderns: Bohemian New York and the Creation of a New Century (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 2000), 18. - while what you produce doesn't have to be all that formal.  It does need to reference a book, and give me enough information to find it and the information presented.)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 05, 2013, 06:01:03 PM
just a second @sarkeizen im on a roll now have a kofi meantime. so the system decompresses O2 gas on one electrode and compresses it on the other in order to equalize work functions so one electrode cools down and the other heats up as reaction proceeds down the gradient..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 05, 2013, 08:44:39 PM
Yawn.  Quit trolling. You said that a cell which powers something like a iPhone forever was written and predicted in all and every textbook on electrochemistry.  This should make it easy to provide a cite from a textbook :D 

Incidentally I've asked you for a cite seventeen times and you have provided none. :D :D :D :D

This is what a cite looks like: 1. Christine Stansell, American Moderns: Bohemian New York and the Creation of a New Century (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 2000), 18. - while what you produce doesn't have to be all that formal.  It does need to reference a book, and give me enough information to find it and the information presented.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 05, 2013, 09:04:04 PM
..and goes to the bottom of the gradient where everything is now evened out,work functions and all..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 06, 2013, 01:12:21 PM
..so down the electrical gradient and up the temperature gradient we go and then trip the switch and blam,everything  springs back to where it was at beginning of cycle at the top of the electrochemical gradient.. gas diffuses out, each electrode returns to its original seperate potential.scissorhands gradients backward, 4ward,backward,4ward meeting at a point  x on the gradients crossing line..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on October 08, 2013, 08:04:39 AM
Karpen Pile is a standard electrolytic cell where platinum is slowly transformed into platinum sulfate and hydrogen is produced around gold electrode. The process is very slow and the piles are big, thus the reason why they are still generating a voltage drop. What to say about the dry piles that are driving the Oxford Electric Bell almost continuously since 1840? If some of you want to call them all "perpetuum mobile" are free to do so, but they actually are Volta's piles.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 08, 2013, 10:52:47 AM
incorrect.if that was the case then all scientists are using oxygen sensors that are unreliable and prone to potentials other than the nernst potential of O2 concentrations giving false information.platinum is far too noble to conjugate with non-complexing sulfate ions and is way way below the hydrogen evolution potential of H+ ions,ie.it,l never happen.you can boil platinum in sulfuric acid solution and you,l still get no reaction,ever.and if it was true what you said then platinum would be the anode(-) of the karpenquenco,not the cathode(+), which it is. Oxford cell uses zinc,a highly reactive metal and gives nano-amps not milli-amps as karpenquenco does(both have been calculated/measured).platinum and gold are so unreactive that they occur almost exclusively in raw elemental state in natural reserves.if it was true what you said then platinum would never ever be used as the choice catalyst for sulfuric and phosphoric acid fuel cell oxygen electrodes and would not be used in the ABSOLUTE STANDARD oxygen electrode in all chemistry textbooks.ridiculous @hollander.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on October 08, 2013, 12:45:07 PM

profitis said:

"platinum is far too noble to conjugate with non-complexing sulfate ions and..."

"platinum and gold are so unreactive that they occur almost exclusively in raw elemental state in natural reserves."

So, the following is fiction...

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/platinum+sulfate
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 08, 2013, 01:17:34 PM
what are you showing me @hollander. Kindly tell us how PtSO4 is manufactured and kindly explain to us why platinum is the CATHODE in the karpenquenco and not the ANODE as you are insisting it is..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on October 08, 2013, 02:52:59 PM

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022072888870426


Can you be sure that nothing happens with Pt in H2SO4 in an electrolytic cell? Can you guarantee that NO atoms (even few atom/(second*cm^2)) go into solution? If you have big electrode, then you may be able to generate a measurable voltage drop (do not talk about current, as far as we know only voltage has been measured with a sensitive galvanometer).

Regarding the issue of anode and cathode, see the standard electrode potential of Au and Pt. Pt gives electrons more easily than Au. It is like the pair Copper - Zinc, respectively (made the proper proportion).
And like Zinc, it is Platinum to go into solution.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 08, 2013, 03:05:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on October 08, 2013, 03:09:24 PM
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.

Do you have the Karpen Pile in your house? Please provide a link with all the details you seem to know about Karpen PIle, and please, stop calling it karpenquenco.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 08, 2013, 03:29:18 PM
i dont need to have it in my house @hollander.the oxygen potential is not the same on gold and platinum,any scientist will tell you that.work functions affect the O2 potential case closed.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on October 08, 2013, 04:03:21 PM

hopeless
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 08, 2013, 04:40:13 PM
hopeless
Don't worry "it is only Svengali talking to himself again. "
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 08, 2013, 05:03:55 PM
@ hollander @sarkeizen hey i didnt make the rules for nernst cells so dont put me on trial for upholding them :-)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 08, 2013, 05:22:46 PM
hey i didnt make the rules for nernst cells
So 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...

I think that's request number eighteen.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 08, 2013, 06:39:11 PM
@sarkeizen thats why im shy to stake claims about the 2nd law. that is something for people to decide for themselves in their calculators,ipods,labs,brains,whatever on their own time and leisure as its generaly impossible to convince people who dont have something to gain by purchasing and/or physicly playing with such devices so 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 flaw .the textbooks predict the cell and its voltage theres no question about it,thus textbooks also predict its functioning and so we simply follow through and by following through exactly by rules we get the shock of our lives.or do we? If a system with 2 maximum entropy states(not 1) calls to go up a temperature gradient for 1 state and down the gradient for the other why not? If we throw some salt into water it heats up.if we throw some  KNO3 into water it cools down ie.entropy doesnt care how you get there just as long as you get there.i,l organise that book just now,just having a kofi quik..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 08, 2013, 07:22:03 PM
@sarkeizen thats why im shy to stake claims about the 2nd law. that is something for people to decide for themselves
Deeply 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.

Quote
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 flaw
Actually what you do is blather mindlessly to make yourself feel more convinced.  You constantly refuse to answer my question. (implied request #19).

 "Help you find a flaw" rings pretty empty when you explain poorly, define no terms usefully, refuse to think critically and have notation that would earn you a failing grade in anything outside of high-school.  So much so it's worthless reading just about anything you write. All of which could be helped by citing a text (Request #20) not to mention validating your initial assertion that every text supports your conclusion.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 08, 2013, 08:59:08 PM
@sarkeizen but thats what im asking you,what part of a  O2 concentration cell doesnt fit with your world view, your belief system,your visual/psychological robotics?you expect an O2 concentration cell to reach a permanent equilibrium like many people ok but the rules of the textbooks dont imply it as the rules of the textbooks tell us what happens after the switch is tripped aswell as before its tripped.all im asking you to do is APPLY those rules @sarkeizen,not MY rules YOUR RULES ie apply YOUR own rules to two identical platinum electrodes at different depths in a glass of acid.your making me angry so im going to delay quoting from the textbook now.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 08, 2013, 09:58:46 PM
@sarkeizen but thats what im asking you,what part of a  O2 concentration cell doesnt fit
Actually 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.

Quote
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 08, 2013, 10:05:11 PM
@sarkeizen hillarious yes !  you refuse to apply your rules to a common air-cell lol! Omg
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 08, 2013, 11:09:55 PM
you refuse to apply your rules to a common air-cell
Which 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.

At this point, I think it's quite possible that textbooks don't actually validate your point or at least you don't know if they do or not.   I lean to the former because evidence suggests that you actually don't understand the formulae you are posting.  You are also, of course going for some kind of trolling record.

As for me, aside from laughing at you.  I'm due to hit "hero member" in less than a month.  Given your problem with citing and my tenacity for calling you on it.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 09, 2013, 12:37:44 AM
@sarkeizen i cited a wikipaedia formula that shows it works,so why do you want a cite from a textbook?sounds like your just being an ass.if you think i dont understand the formula thats your problem not mine.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 09, 2013, 03:45:41 AM
@sarkeizen i cited a
Wrong. Go back and read what a cite is. :D
Quote
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. 

Are you withdrawing this claim? or does it still stand?  If the former then perhaps we can talk about something else if the later I will continue to pursue the claim you made.

Quote
sounds like your just being an ass.
ROFL.  Actually that's you.

It was your claim, is it somehow bad manners for you to be held to your own claim?  If so, then I guess I'm not Emily Post.
On the other hand you've spent a week or so just avoiding fulfilling a task that should be easy for you to do.  If it's hard, then I would have expected an explanation.  It seems deliberate so I figure you're a troll.  Which kind of makes you the ass, don't you think?

Quote
if you think i dont understand the formula
What 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.

What other choice does a rational person have except to consider you ignorant?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 09, 2013, 01:23:31 PM
@sarkeizen citation: concentration cell,a galvanic cell in which the chemical energy  converted in2 electrical energy is arising from the concentration difference of a species at the 2 electrodes of a cell.this process will continue until the concentration difference is equaled in the cell. electrochem.cwru.edu. A marvelous citation from a internet electrochem dictionary.so now lets hear your grievences with this crystal clear citation predicting a air-conc. cell that continues until equilibrium.i,l organise that textbook citation just now i promise,having a kofi quick..     
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 09, 2013, 05:02:49 PM
now lets hear your grievences with this crystal clear citation
Go 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
Quote

l organise that textbook citation just now
Yawn.  Troll, troll, troll troll.

This sounds like an employee trying to weasel out of work.   Since when does citing a textbook - that you would think you OWN - requires organization.  Oh yeah, it's a HUGE undertaking, requiring thousands of person-hours to look something up in an INDEX.  It's like building the Brooklyn Bridge finding that thing that is in EVERY textbook.

You are hilariously stupid.

Aside: Isn't it kind of tedious typing deliberately poorly?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 09, 2013, 05:19:35 PM
@sarkeizen so you have no grievences with that citation?yes or no
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 09, 2013, 05:26:30 PM
@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.

In fact, as a general rule I would advise that few people enjoy repeating themselves as much as I do so your lack of desire and/or inclination in this respect might explain your inability to have a conversation with well...everyone here.

READING - those tv shows you watched as a kid were right.  It's important! :D :D

Also - 4 hours after your quick coffee...no textbook cite or are you still in the "organizational" part of that process.  Perhaps recruiting a team of researchers to find what you claim is in every textbook?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 09, 2013, 05:30:24 PM
@sarkeizen so you have no grievence with that citation case closed.now theres no need to cite anything more..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 09, 2013, 05:31:27 PM
@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.

Suppose you were working your shift at Burger King and a customer comes in and orders a Whopper and you say: "Here's your sandwich let me know if you have any problems." and you hand them a frog.  Are you saying that you can infer they are completely satisfied with something you didn't give them?

I mean the frog isn't even between two slices of bread. :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 09, 2013, 05:40:31 PM
@sarkeizen so you  endorse that citation too,niiicccee
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 09, 2013, 05:45:18 PM
@sarkeizen so you  endorse that citation too,niiicccee
It's not a cite.

I get how it feels good to put words in someones mouth but all that does is communicate that you're frustrated.  I understand that.  You are being asked to argue logically, cite sources and think rationally.  Things you probably are not required to do while at the deep fryer.

Also didn't you "promise" a textbook cite?  Didn't you promise it "quick"? About four or so hours ago?  What is your word worth again?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 09, 2013, 05:51:34 PM
@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 (-:
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 09, 2013, 05:53:41 PM
@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?

Hence by your own logic you can't believe that I agree with this. :D :D

Oh...and what about your promise?  Almost five hours now for the "quick" textbook cite you promised.  Are you having trouble hiring specialists in "looking things up in books"?  That can be tricky.

Keep on posting this kind of material...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 09, 2013, 06:05:23 PM
@sarkeizen whatever its called whatever it is you agreed with it thats all that matters and its completely different to my other citations btw(they were just formulas).dont get all mad about it @sarkeizen it was the right thing for you to do buds (-:. Thers no need for further citations,you agreed with the one citation you needed to agree with buds ..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 09, 2013, 06:09:44 PM
@sarkeizen whatever its called whatever it is
What it is, is not something that can be agreed with in the context of the discussion.  You just refuted yourself.  Good job.
Quote
and its completely different to my other citations
You haven't made any at all. :D :D :D :D
Quote
dont get all mad about it
Dude.  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.

..and for the record...are you going to keep your promise?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on October 09, 2013, 06:20:40 PM
@profitis
Sarky does not care about the math, or the theory, or even a working device, 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)
 
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.
 
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 09, 2013, 06:24:34 PM
@sarkeizen yeah you asked me to post em but i asked you to agree with em and you didnt,until today that is :-).dont be ashamed @sarkeizen its ok to agree with the frikkn textbook once in a while geez,youre acting like its against the law or something.yes i promised to quote a cite but realy,thers no need after today mate.whats the point now,that last citation summed it all up :-)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 09, 2013, 06:32:54 PM
@lumen yes i know but he finaly agreed with my last citation,miracles happen :-)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 09, 2013, 06:49:40 PM
@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.
Quote from: An Enormous Obstructionist Asshole
dont be ashamed @sarkeizen its ok to agree with the frikkn textbook
Ashamed 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.
Quote from: An Enormous Obstructionist Asshole
yes i promised to quote a cite but realy,thers no need after today mate.whats the point now
Hmmmm...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?

But please don't stop posting.  Like I said, this story is amazing.

Quote from: An Enormous Obstructionist Asshole
,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.

and now on to...
Quote from: Lumen the moronic
Sarky does not care about the math
What 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.
Quote from: Lumen the moronic
, or the theory
What 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.
Quote from: Lumen the moronic
, or even a working device
Sure 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.
Quote from: Lumen the moronic
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"
Quote from: Lumen the moronic
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 09, 2013, 08:01:18 PM
@lumen yes i know but he finaly agreed with my last citation,miracles happen :-)

@Lumen This is an interesting question.   Do you think I agreed with some statement of Profitis's?  If so you can point out where I agreed.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 09, 2013, 08:50:18 PM
@lumen he,s trying to crawl out of it now to rescue his stupidity lol. He,s trying to trick you into thinking i said that he agrees with me when i said he agreed with the textbook quote ayayayay.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on October 09, 2013, 09:07:21 PM
@profitis , sarky doesn't want the quote, he wants the name of the book and where you found the information. Then, he can look it up and determine if what you claim is valid in his own mind.
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 09, 2013, 09:15:00 PM
@lumen he,s trying to crawl out of it now
Crawl out of what exactly crazy man?
Quote
to rescue his stupidity
You are the only person I've ever met who would think about rescuing ones stupidity.
Quote
i said that he agrees with me
I 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.

Funny how time and time again you make the argument against your own actions.  Citing is useful.  Start doing it someday.
Quote
when i said he agreed with the textbook quote
Well at least you finally realize it's not a cite.  I haven't agreed with anything...yet anyway.  I don't have a cite.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 09, 2013, 09:16:11 PM
@lumen i gave sarkeizen the mail address and the quote he can look it up instantly.from the highest institution of electrochem in the states i believe.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 09, 2013, 09:21:19 PM
@lumen i gave sarkeizen the mail address
Mail address?  So I'm supposed to send them a letter? :D
Quote
he can look it up instantly
A cite needs to point to a specific document and if it is large you need to provide information stating the position in the document.

I gave you an example, if you stubbornly refuse to follow it. Doesn't that make you the person with the problem?
Quote
highest institution of electrochem
You mean it's on a mountain?  Seriously how would you even evaluate this unless the field was ridiculously small.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 09, 2013, 09:53:10 PM
@sarkeizen ok so i ask you again then. do you agree with my last quotation or not.yes or no
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 09, 2013, 10:52:27 PM
do you agree with my last quotation or not.yes or no
Agree, in what sense?

Also thanks for implicitly admitting that you lied about my agreeing with your statement.  I'd like to say that you have been pretty unethical through this entire discussion.  Want to explain your unethical behavior?  I've caught you in several deceptions, you've broken promises and in general kind of trampled all over the social contract that most people seem to consider implied in a discussion.  You might want to try and be a better person.  Just a thought.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 09, 2013, 11:35:34 PM
@sarkeizen youre the nasty one,you called me an obstructionist asshole i didnt call you an obstructionist asshole. Ok i lied but i feel it was justified because you evaded my question pertaining to my quote that time by rapid deliberate attempted diversion of the subject(the quote) onto a plethora of other issues so yes i lied about you agreeing with a quote from the highest institution of electrochem in the states.sorry .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? Its cleary you who is obstructing not me @sarkeizen.im simply asking you if you think that what they say in their statement is consistent with fact,yes or no.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 10, 2013, 12:22:44 AM
@sarkeizen youre the nasty one
I'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.
Quote
you called me an obstructionist asshole
Dude 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.

Either you had a textbook or you didn't.  If you didn't you should have said instead of spending a lot of time trying to avoid the question.
If you need to change your thesis.  You should say, not constantly avoid the question.
Ether you were going to fulfill your promise or you shouldn't have promised (not to mention the other times where you didn't promise but did express intent).

Next time just argue, don't try all this deceptive shit.

Quote
Ok i lied but i feel it was justified
And somehow you don't think you're an asshole.  Wow.  Score one for the power of being blind to your own flaws.

Quote
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. 

Do you seriously not see that what you have described is YOU not me?

Quote
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.

That ain't obstructing that's just good sense.  So about that cite... :D :D :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 10, 2013, 01:42:36 AM
@sarkeizen sure i must remember that your not an electrochemist and thus be more err accomodating,duely noted but your just being silly now.any person with basic high school knowledge knows that batteries run until equilibrium and you know it too so youre obviously hellbent on sidetracking and trying to be funny for some reason which is lame.its for similar such reasons i mirrored your ways and delayed my promise,which incidently we wont be needing after you answer my question,do batteries run until equilibrium @sarkeizen,yes or no.focus on my question now forget  the textbook please,yes or no @sarkeizen.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 10, 2013, 02:57:04 PM
any person with basic high school knowledge knows that batteries run until equilibrium and you know it too so youre obviously hellbent on sidetracking
If 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.

QED mofo. :D

Quote
and trying to be funny
No I *am* funny and I've made no secret that you are amusing me.

Quote
delayed my promise
You 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?

No wait.  Your lying is my fault right?  I wonder how long you can tell yourself that?  Probably forever. :D

Quote
,yes or no.focus on my question now forget  the textbook please,yes or no
I 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.

If you want to keep stalling for what are undeniably illogical or irrational reasons then be my guest.  I don't have any stake in the outcome, you are clearly the person halting the conversation by:

i) Demanding we talking about your point and your point only - that we focus on textbooks.
ii) When I comply and focus on textbooks.  You demand I agree or disagree on a point which for all I know is not in a textbook.
iii) When I humbly request a reference to a textbook.  You demand I agree or disagree at which point you will demand that we don't need to talk about textbooks anymore.

Yeah, this stalemate is all my fault. :D Must be.  On the other hand I wonder how much damage you can cause to your thinking process by forcing yourself to rationalize all this craziness.  I'm glad I have a front row seat.
 
I really hope that your conflict resolution skills are better than this IRL.  Not that I'd be terribly surprised if they weren't.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 10, 2013, 05:23:58 PM
@sarkeizen funny indeed but now youre coming back into silly.you want me to run around for references,citations,cross-examinations and cross-textbook quotes for a question that a teenager can answer without hesitation.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?preposterous.if you wont answer that logical question,which certainly doesnt require a single citation,how do you propose we move forward to a factual conclusion @sarkeizen? The stalemate is on you now because i want to close instantly. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 11, 2013, 01:08:40 AM
you want me to run around for references,citations,cross-examinations and cross-textbook quotes
Slippery 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.

Next time why not simply argue "Nobody but Profitis says..." you would have had no argument from me on that one. :D

Quote
for a question that a teenager can answer without hesitation.
That's the "ad populum' fallacy.  Look it up you logical loser.

Quote
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

Your case was: "all the textbooks say..." so actually it seems far more relevant to find out what the textbooks say than what you say or what the kids on your block say or what your pets say.  Perhaps when you want to find out what textbooks say you consult your friends and/or pets but if you ask me that's a pretty monumentally stupid way to accomplish that.

Quote
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

Quote
if you wont answer that logical question
Sorry 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.

Quote
how do you propose we move forward to a factual conclusion
Simple. 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.

Furthermore, as has been stated before there is no way for this request, if the textbooks really support your point for this request to harm your argument.  Hence, your refusal is not only more time consuming than complying, unreasonable and irrational.

Quote
The stalemate is on you now because i want to close instantly.
Absolutely, entirely and utterly incorrect and provably so.

If you want to...ok I have no idea what "close instantly" means but it sounds like something your girlfriend probably complains about.

However if you want for the discussion to progress more quickly then you will provide the cite.  Clearly the only thing you are accomplishing is prolonging the conversation (and amusing me).
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 11, 2013, 09:31:05 AM
@sarkeizen lol! why would you want one quote from a textbook that indicates an everlasting cell when i already just gave you one,you can double-triple check on it by going to  that link i provided in my last quote.i,l answer my question for you,yes a concentration cell will last until equilibrium ie.a air-cell will last until the air is equal at BOTH electrodes case closed. the air level at the top of a glass of ocean liquid will never be the same as on the bottom of the glass of ocean liquid.air is lighter than water,its concentration at the surface of water is massively different than below its surface,permanently.2 identical platinum or gold electrodes,one at the surface and one below the surface cannot permanently equalize their air concentration.only temporarily.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 11, 2013, 03:21:34 PM
quote from a textbook that indicates an everlasting cell when i already just gave you one
Can 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.

The only thing you've posted is a domain name (if you want to be technical there's a difference between that and a link).  Which, if you convert it into a URL it doesn't locate a document which contains the quote you provided.  If there is some specific URL on that site that you meant to reference then you should probably do that.  A cite, as I told you when you posted your domain name needs to be specific. 

If you were to demand a real person, say your girlfriend (after you apologize for "finishing instantly" of course) to believe something because, as you say "A textbook says it" and then when asked "Which textbook" you just say "Oh some library somewhere has it".  That's probably a good recipe to get slapped...and you would deserve it.

As was proved earlier, there is absolutely no rational reason to deny a reasonable request like this and by not providing it you are being irrational, unethical (you promised a textbook cite - I don't have one) and of course deliberately halting the discussion.

I still wonder why all this song and dance about something you seem to say is incredibly easy to provide but you still spend 100x the time posting about how you refuse to provide it (even though you promised) when you could have provided it and got on with the discussion.

That doesn't sound like someone who has a winning argument in their pocket to me.  Which is giving me all the more reason to want to see the cite.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 11, 2013, 05:54:22 PM
@sarkeizen Its not an argument when somebody uses logic or common sense to support reality and then gets poked about not providing the four thousand citations,references,cross-pre-examinations and post-cross-examinations to support it.thats just being silly.an analogy discussion would be : claimant: 'air is see-through',  sarkeizen:'show the reference to back up that statement',  claimant:'ok i,l show a reference',  sarkeizen,'not good enough show a quote',  claimant,'ok i,l show a quote',  sarkeizen,'not good enough show a cite'  claimant,'please stop im exhausted',  sarkeizen,'prove it'.  claimant,'please sir im tired'.  sarkeizen,'show your method of making the claim of tiredness'. So must you seriously realy require the full blown citation to the statement,'batteries run until equilibrium'?.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 11, 2013, 08:05:44 PM
Its not an argument when somebody uses logic or common sense to support reality
So far you haven't shown much logic or common sense.  Definitely zero logic.
Quote
and then gets poked about not providing the four thousand citations,references,cross-pre-examinations and post-cross-examinations to support
Again, 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.


Quote
thats just being silly.an analogy discussion would be
Wrong.  :D  As I illustrate below...

Quote
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

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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 it seems you are being deceptive (Again!) in some way.  Either you could easily provide the cite and won't for some reason you have not disclosed OR the cite is not easy to get.

Quote
So must you seriously realy require the full blown citation
ROFL. ROFL. ROFL.  All this drama, over something that takes under 5 minutes.   Clearly less time than you've spend avoiding the question.  To wit:

Quote from: Linear Algebra and its Applications, Page 253, David C. Lay, Addison Wesley Longman, 2nd Edition
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

I looked up the above and typed it out in 2 minutes.  Now get off your lazy ass.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 12, 2013, 12:40:42 AM
@sarkeizen  claimant:'use the textbook to help you build a forever battery.'  sarkeizen:'but i dont know how'  claimant:'find a friend'  sarkeizen:'i got no friends'  claimant:'go make friends'  sarkeizen:'no i want a cite lazybones,*blush*'  claimant;'you obstructionist asswipe'
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 12, 2013, 02:02:15 AM
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:

Quote from: enormous obstructionist asshole
no need to observe.its written and predicted in  textbooks

If I don't need to observe then clearly I don't need to build.  So all I need are the textbook cites, now I would understand some reluctance if they were impossible books to find but again you said...

Quote from: enormous obstructionist asshole
all and every textbook on electrochemistry

That's what YOU said.  Were you wrong?  Can you say: "I Profitis the obstructionist asshole am wrong.  Clearly the textbooks don't predict this and/or the textbooks are exceptionally difficult to get and I have been a trolling obstructionist because I am wrong."

oh and...
Quote from: Discrete and Combinatorial Mathematics, Pg 56, Ralph P. Grimaldi, Pearson Addison Wesley, 5th edition
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 12, 2013, 11:41:49 AM
@ sarkeizen claimant:'chek it says cells run until equilibrium electrochem.cwru.edu/ed/dict.htm'  sarkeizen,'dont talk crap'  claimant,'yes the work function of a piece of gold at potential depth(a) is different from the work function of a piece of gold at potential depth(b) quasi-temporarily its a quenco.a working quenco.a working f*@?ing quenco.  sarkeizen,'talk shit,seriously?'  claimant,'well the work function is dependant on the potential isnt it?'  sarkeizen,'no shit shirlock (-:,you genius,*blush*'
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 15, 2013, 04:57:55 PM
chek it says cells run until equilibrium electrochem.cwru.edu/ed/dict.htm
As 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

That took me 20 seconds.   Please troll more efficiently.

So I wonder how many posts there are teaching EOA how to cite?  I really don't envy teachers who have these kids in their class these days.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 15, 2013, 07:35:29 PM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 15, 2013, 08:30:00 PM
@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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 15, 2013, 09:49:56 PM
@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..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 15, 2013, 10:04:12 PM
@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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 15, 2013, 10:21:20 PM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on October 15, 2013, 10:49:11 PM
Gibbs energy?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 15, 2013, 11:22:14 PM
@lumen theltaG=  -nFE  where nF is faradays constant and E is the cell potential.   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 16, 2013, 06:53:11 PM
@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.

According to the quote: "consists of an anode and a cathode half cell that contain the same chemical species but where the concentration of the species in the electrode is different on one than in the other, for example, a solid solution containing the chemical species."

So the electrode in a electrode concentration cell is made of the species.  Are you saying that the gold and platinum electrodes in the KP contain oxygen?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 16, 2013, 08:28:18 PM
@sarkeizen affirmative.O2 adsorbs directly onto the gold and platinum surfaces like a sponge to different degrees.even if they were to adsorb to the same degree by volume their heats of adsorption differ and thus their thermodynamic enthalpies differ leading to different activities (a) of the adsorbed species.the more rigorous form of the cell potential becomes RT/nF ln aO2 A/aO2 B.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 16, 2013, 10:03:09 PM
@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.

It certainly doesn't clearly state, you can make a battery that runs forever there and there isn't any information on the limitations or requirements of constructing that type of cell.  This doesn't really qualify as "predicting" anything as far as I see.

Which again, might be a good reason to refer (that is to say "cite") a more expansive text like...I don't know...a textbook? :D

I wonder how many posts you'll spend avoiding referencing one this time?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 16, 2013, 10:32:15 PM
@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 :-)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 17, 2013, 03:27:13 PM
@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

If there's enough to make the prediction that you claimed, of a battery which runs forever with sufficient specs to run an ipod and it's as obvious as you are implying then you should be able to create a formal logical argument for it.

I realize that whatever your education it didn't include anything remotely like formal logic, so I'll help.  You need to make a series of statements which force your conclusion, that is they exclude all other possibilities purely through logic and ONLY the assumptions explicitly stated in that one quote.  No other assumptions from anywhere else.

Now if you can't do that then one of two things seem likely, either you can't extrapolate what you think from just those forty-two words OR it's not as obvious as you're implying.

Here's the place where you think you can do that, get it wrong, then you claim that it's right and look more stupid than usual.  Please begin. :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 17, 2013, 05:28:14 PM
@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 it or b) if your lazy at least drawing it and checking it out in theory first. So if i told you to go steal two oxygen probes from your local aquarium and build an self-charging O2 concentration cell whats preventing you from a)stealing and building it to check it out or b) if your too scared to steal and too lazy to build check it out on paper,in theory. logic enough? Commonsense enough? TWO oxygen sensor probes ie. im not talking about building a nuclear bomb here man.you havent made one single challenge on the grounds of common sense here as im telling you that a KNOWN TYPE OF CELL will not go flat ever.its on you to disprove me not me to disprove you.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 17, 2013, 05:51:28 PM
@sarkeizen  the maximum entropy state of 2 SEPERATE pieces of platinum sitting at different depths in a glass of water,one at its surface,one below its surface is NOT THE SAME as when they are in physical contact with each other,logic enough? Seperate=maximum entropy state (a).in contact=maximum entropy state (b).pure utter logic
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 17, 2013, 05:53:59 PM
@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 it
What test unequivocally confirms "lasts forever" that doesn't take forever to do?
Quote
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.
Quote
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

Quote
you havent made one single challenge on the grounds of common sense
Common 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.

Quote
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).

Quote
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.

What I have done, so far anyway is shown that you don't have a very good reason for making your claim and in addition I've also demonstrated that even if good reasons for believing your claim exist.  You don't believe that you should provide them.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 17, 2013, 06:07:10 PM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 17, 2013, 06:08:53 PM
@sarkeizen we can expand on this when you agree with my above statement.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 17, 2013, 07:20:03 PM
@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

So I win.  Thanks. :D

(I'm kind of disappointed with you giving up so easily I fully expected a hundred posts of you dancing around with "I know I'm supposed to be arguing that the textbooks say something but I will do everything in my power to avoid quoting a textbook EVER!" - that's kind of fun! I miss it already.)

(I think you secretly hate textbooks :D :D :D)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 18, 2013, 02:55:51 AM
@sarkeizen so lets do that,lets take 2 standard oxygen electrodes from the textbook at standard temperature,standard pressure,shove them both into standard electrolyte(sulfuric acid co-incidently) and change ONE variable between them,access to oxygen.so now you cant complain about parameters anymore,contexts anymore,little thingies anymore as every single thing,beside access to oxygen,is standardized kapishe? Ok? You with me so far?going smooth?any complaints?i got you by the balls now you cant escape this one.heres a typical standardized  concentration cell for you governed by standard equasions governed by standard methods by all standard textbooks.now follow through with standard procedure ... calculate using standard ways when and how equilibrium is attained,the standard way.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on October 18, 2013, 03:42:48 AM
There are upgraded specs on the quentron.com blog-ad. But the funding business didn't exist. Except on FaceBook, where it still attracts new supporters.
 ???
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 18, 2013, 02:28:04 PM
@sarkeizen so lets do that,lets take 2 standard oxygen electrodes from the textbook...
@EOA - So does that mean I get a cite?
Quote
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).
Quote
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.

I don't really care if I'm wrong - I'm probably not and you are likely forgetting something or using some special definition of "runs forever".  For me reloading this site every morning is like reading a "joke of the day". 

(Somewhere your high-school textbooks are crying: "EOA EOA lama sabachthani?")
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 18, 2013, 03:40:51 PM
@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 and calculate.applies to any battery.a textbook doesnt know the differences in size of batteries so they give us a set of rules and we apply and calculate lifespans @sarkeizen.we calculate.calculate.on paper.what, you think im trying to be funny?we calculate the lifespan of ALL batteries man dont be silly.we calculate them with a calculator.we calculate them with a calculator powered by a cell that wont fail us halfway between calculations.ive cited the rules now get a-calculatin man.you mentioned schoolbooks right so use them to CALCULATE.in the real world its calculations that matter.if you want me to calculate for you i,d be willing to assist.no citation from any schoolbook will give an exact date of expiry im afraid,sorry man,but they will help us calculate it :-).thats what i meant when i said 'textbooks tell us that it runs forever'.they help us to calculate expiry dates so we gonna calculate ne!?by the rules ne?ima help you.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 18, 2013, 11:33:24 PM
@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.

Quote
a textbook doesnt know the differences in size of batteries so they give us a set of rules
A textbook doesn't "know" anything - it's a book - just in case you haven't read one.

Your implication doesn't really hold water.  You claim that virtually any electrochemist knows how to construct a battery that runs ETERNALLY and there's not even a footnote to this effect in any text?  Even in a world which is constantly looking for better battery technologies?  No discussion of the cost-effectiveness of building a device with a battery that runs out vs. one that NEVER EVER WILL?  No use case of where ETERNAL batteries are useful?  No statements anywhere about what the practical limits of a particular technology are? Even university physics textbooks mention discuss RTG's, solar cells and crystal radios in these contexts and none of those are true "perpetual motion machines" like you make your eternal batteries out to be.

Quote
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.

Quote
ive cited the rules
Wrong.  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.

Which is what your argument is so far.  Pretty much zero.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 19, 2013, 11:23:05 AM
@sarkeizen well if you bothered to seriously hunt for karpen-crapster info you wouldve seen quite a few documents,not footnotes but documents,scattered around the net giving much more detailed technical surgergy than i have here.documents from well established institutions from various countries(russia,china,india)all ending with a giant question mark over the 2nd law.and thats a good question you asked,why dont these analysis documents appear in textbooks,or even on crackpot freenergy-websites for that matter,why so underground,mm.anyway i dont want to post any of them here as i dont want people jumping ahead of my own research(i think i just found the reason why they remain underground) but i,l give you this table on the properties of platinum: nature.berkeley.edu/classes/eps2/wisc/pt.html and if you check near the bottom it says that platinum wont oxidize in air at ANY temperature and it wont react with mineral acids(sulfuric,nitric,hydrochloric) so im going to trust that 2 chunks of platinum sitting in a sealed glass of airated epsom salts solution(good for piles) are going to remain pretty permanently stable for uhm,eternity.i dont know about you but i trust that info.other batteries internals change with time(self-discharge)but not this one.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: tony3232 on October 21, 2013, 09:35:26 AM
yo. this is my first post ever, i hope i dont get banned for one post, but if i am so be it. just 1 quick question (because i have not read all of this thread, or at least what i see as an argument. i may come off as ignorant, because i am.), why doesn't who ever is talking about a zinc air battery that runs forever just make one? don't get me wrong, i love theories, both brilliant and crackpot ones, but i tire of seeing only theories and figures, but no product. forgive me if i am out of place, and pleeeez don't ban me, i've read some stories, and i hope they aren't true! so now....  :-X
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 21, 2013, 09:18:13 PM
@sarkeizen well if you bothered to seriously hunt for karpen-crapster info you wouldve seen
Someone doing your homework for you?  Sadly I'm not interested in attempting to make your point for you. :D
Quote
why dont these analysis documents appear in textbooks
So you're now saying that textbooks DON'T predict your batteries that run forever.  Which is it? 
Quote
i dont want to post any of them here as i dont want people jumping ahead of my own research
Dude, like every other person on OU it's almost assured that you have nothing worth selling.   Anyway your point was about textbooks.

Quote
l give you this table on the properties of platinum: nature.berkeley.edu/classes/eps2/wisc/pt.html
You 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.

I await you failing to do so. :D
Quote
permanently stable for uhm,eternity.
Assuming some things that you are not qualified to assume. :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 21, 2013, 10:36:02 PM
@sarkeizen qualified? Lol! It is you who are assuming sir.you assume that the battery internals change over time.you assume that the internals will change over the course of the next 30million years.you assume that the platinum nuggets are not already in their minimum gibbsonian free energy state.you assume that they will magicaly somehow alter,change,become different than what they are now.not me. i declare with totalitarian certainty that they abso-f@&%ing-lutely will not change one iota over the next 30million years.i declare with totalitarian certainty that their physical micro-crystalline sufaces alter instantly as soon as you drop them in the glass and then stay that way.i declare that their surface work function differences are the same 30million years from now as what they are today.its on you to prove otherwise because anybody can build it anytime and physicaly see that i am correct.ie.you have to prove that it does not physicaly run for 30million years,at ambient temperature, in order to uphold the sacred 2nd law thermodynamics.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 23, 2013, 08:03:32 PM
@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.
Quote
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.
Quote
i declare with totalitarian certainty that they abso-f@&%ing-lutely will not change one iota over the next 30million years
Well 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...

...that still doesn't make you correct or qualified to make the assertion.  :D

So about that textbook cite... :D

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 23, 2013, 09:05:58 PM
@sarkeizen  not my totalitarianism, natures totalitarianism,but it will become my totalitarianism if you dont get off your exceedingly lazy ass and build it or have somebody build it for you and put it in your pet,s, girlfriend,s or tricycle,s tracking device or something and test it.at least these articles wont just vannish ever again.  the internals dont change @sarkeizen,they dont change,they refuse to change,they simply dont change man.other batteries change with time,not this one.its got 2 entropy states,same as the proposed quenco.   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 23, 2013, 09:22:41 PM
@sarkeizen  not my totalitarianism, natures totalitarianism
Please, lie to someone else.  If that's what you meant then you accidentally misspelled 'nature' as the most popular word in the English language.
Quote
if you dont get off your exceedingly lazy ass and build it or have somebody build it for you
Yawn.  Again there would be no test to satisfy your assertion.   
Quote
the internals dont change
Again, 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.

Again...textbook cite please....:D Only 198 more posts to go...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 23, 2013, 09:33:06 PM
 @sarkeizen,,yawn,,youre basicly saying that platinum reacts with water beyond its equilibrium constant of reaction which,buddy-bro, is TOTALITARIANISTICALY forbidden by the rules of any chemistry textbook.i shouldnt have to cite this as you ought to know it from your schooldays (-:.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 23, 2013, 09:44:09 PM
@sarkeizen,,yawn,,youre basicly saying
Not necessarily.  Again logic appears to be the thing you were terribly deprived of.

Texbook cite again...please.

Try to honor your promise once.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 23, 2013, 11:05:17 PM
@sarkeizen try? Im using info from schoolbooks to honour my word.seriously dude,what more basic support could you want.im not trying to trick you when i say,follow the rules with this thing.its a schoolbook mind-perception-f@!&k actualy as schoolbooks teach us what happens when we throw the switch,and  it also teaches us what happens after we switch it off.what it forgot to do was combine the before and after together,thats all. combination of the before and after rules get us to the 'forever' bit.rules @sarkeizen,were made to be obeyed.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 24, 2013, 05:09:29 PM
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 24, 2013, 06:59:19 PM
@sarkeizen yawn my argument already moved forward long ago and concluded successfully on nature,s terms when i said to you to build it and bear witness to it.its you dragging on behind with citations paraphanalia while im 3 steps ahead into practical application already so its you looking pretty bad right now not me.theres no proofs better than replicability in any frei-energie courtroom threads so nature wins hands down.if you want to be defence attorney for the 2nd law you should be prepared for thread courtrooms and be able to pinpoint exactly how the exhibit runs out of juice,given the fullblown internal layout of the exhibit ontop of it.you havent and you wont.this does dramatic damage to your reputation here as you provide no deadly counter-argument  thus there is no argument,just a discussion going on with mediocre 2star entertainment value.its not even a discussion when the guy says the words,'build it' and 'check it with the schoolbooks' in the same sentence,its a lesson.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 24, 2013, 08:06:00 PM
yawn
Your 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".
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 24, 2013, 08:29:10 PM
@sarkeizen ho-hum now youre a even more lousy attorney for the 2nd law  than you were a minute ago.i said to use the textbook to help you build a perpetual motion device and you still demand yet another citation :-)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on October 25, 2013, 12:45:14 AM
Hi Profitis,

How about you just quote a few textbooks or demonstrate your own practical experience of the everlasting power source?
If its so incredibly easy and well documented, it should be a piece of p&ss to replicate - lots of people here would love to know how.

Better still, make one (from the textbooks which show you how) and I will give you a £5000 if you can demonstrate it powering something common like an iPod for, say, a week running video constantly (there are caveats of course, I can explain if you are serious about the prize).

You know what, if its well documented (which you haven't proven thus far - correct me if I am wrong of course (by citing a peer-reviewed publication)) then I doubt it works - the amount of people looking for a 'perpetual' battery are in the millions and the chances of them missing an 'all textbooks' instruction-guide are slim.

Again, I would love to see this working but I cannot find any textbook or online source showing how!
Can you?

I am not siding with either of you in this argument (I am happy to sit on the fence and watch - as are a lot of people....it's entertaining!!!!) but I have to admit that Sarkeizen has a point - you aren't providing what you said was readily available and you aren't providing any practical proof. Instead, you are forcing Sarkeizen to disprove you when you haven't actually proven anything...pretty lame.

Why not put your theory where your mouth is and show us all how to do it or at least provide that fu:;ing cite - I cannot find it and I have tried, throw this dog a bone won't ya!

Thanks!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 25, 2013, 12:48:44 AM
ho-hum
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".  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

Keep on trolling, EOA don't let thinking people lure you out into the open.  Keep on hiding.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 25, 2013, 04:42:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 25, 2013, 04:55:47 PM
@sarkeizen im still waiting for you to get off your butt and build an oxygen-electrode concentration cell in line with the rules..im waiting..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 25, 2013, 05:04:38 PM
im
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

Keep on trolling, EOA don't let thinking people lure you out into the open.  Keep on hiding.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 25, 2013, 05:12:35 PM
@sarkeizen i already cited the rules now go and build,im still waiting.@sarkeizen i already cited the rules now go and build on paper,im still waiting..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 25, 2013, 09:46:40 PM
i
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

Keep on trolling, EOA don't let thinking people lure you out into the open.  Keep on hiding.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on October 25, 2013, 11:00:40 PM
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.

Hi P,
I thought it was easy and well documented! Certainly sounds like its an expensive thing to build!
Public demo would be fine - payment once it's proven to last forever :-)

I have to admit, I am a little skeptical as to the cell ability to operate forever. Have you built one or is there a report of someone running some electronics from one of these batteries that they have built?
Maybe its cost prohibitive?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 26, 2013, 08:31:31 AM
@sarkeizen i already cited rules,go build.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 26, 2013, 09:02:36 AM
@madebymonkeys concentration cells are well documented sir, different college books give different examples and this example behaves no different to others,until you switch it off.i dont know why they didnt focus on this particular example and expand on it though sir,thats a mystery. yes corrosion resistant components are usually frighteningly expensive but not always,there are ways round this.yes theres one such device on display in romania,its been turning quite a large motor(needs milliamps) nonstop for about 70years,maybe longer. my research focuses on commercial viability so i test very small samples of material and then get an idea of how bigger samples will behave.if you give me some time to get the demo set-up sorted then all will be perfect :-).are you going to be around? If i drop you a pm when im ready will you see it?     
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 27, 2013, 10:06:08 AM
heres a variation of quenco that anyone can build
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: tony3232 on October 27, 2013, 06:11:19 PM
heres a variation of quenco that anyone can build
so i just need sulfuric acid and platinum? how would i set this up, and isn't pure platinum exceedingly expensive?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 27, 2013, 07:34:47 PM
yes.preferably platinized(black) platinum for currents upward of 100microamp/cm2.dilute sulfuric,phosphoric acids will do fine.alum is fine,sodium sulfate is fine,magnesium sulfate is fine.ammonium sulfate is fine.sodium bicarbonate is fine,sodium hydroxide is exellent.sodium carbonate is exellent.its way too expensive to be practical but its exquisite for scientific study and scrutiny.its relation to the proposed quenco(the cathode work function adjusts to its potential,the anode work function adjusts to its potential)is too important to ignore.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 28, 2013, 03:17:14 PM
i
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

Keep on trolling, EOA don't let thinking people lure you out into the open.  Keep on hiding.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 28, 2013, 07:44:07 PM
@sarkeizen by the rules.play the ball where it lies.here the respective potential adjusts to the respective surface work function:
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lancaIV on October 28, 2013, 08:39:26 PM
Whow,but it is not easier to take a silver or
 chemalloy http://chemalloy.blogspot.pt/2012/01/chemalloy-samuel-freedman.html (http://chemalloy.blogspot.pt/2012/01/chemalloy-samuel-freedman.html)
spoon and do this catalysator,the spoon,into a glas of water ?


Mother held her little spoon
twenty minutes under water
not to make it any trouble
but to see the fine O² bubbles
                                                we are all very Lime-rick


Sincerely
              OCWdL
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 28, 2013, 09:20:06 PM
@lanca aha.try silver and cobalt together in borax solution :-).
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lancaIV on October 28, 2013, 10:10:01 PM
the silver would be transmutated by the cobalt radioactivity and inside borax there would be the need to calculate the different elements attraction/repulsion forces .


Cobalt is not a conventional in  household preparing solution .
Why making life harder ?


A chemalloy quirl,with rough surface (friction ! nascent oxygen: elemental growth ) and this as part from a centrifugal working rotor, be turned by free energy(wind ,water,bicycle) or electric motor ?


Sincerely
              OCWdL
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 28, 2013, 11:12:18 PM
screeech brakes on @lanca! Jumping the gun here ey? Jumping into lenrs territory already i see but we have to keep it simple for the audience (-:.silver and cobalt are a good karpen setup.large difference in oxygen potential on those two in alkaline media.we can substitute nickel for cobalt then for convenience but its not as good. About that alloy,is it not galvanic powered electrolysis perhaps? I see zinc and aluminum in there with copper 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 29, 2013, 07:51:03 PM
by
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

Keep on trolling, EOA don't let thinking people lure you out into the open.  Keep on hiding.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 30, 2013, 11:10:33 PM
@sarkeizen  play the ball where it lies..2 entropy states:
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 31, 2013, 03:49:41 AM
play
The 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

Keep on trolling, EOA don't let thinking people lure you out into the open.  Keep on hiding.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 03, 2013, 07:36:25 AM
@sarkeizen...where it lyes..here we see that the karpen system registers zero volt and zero amp under pure argon gas.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on November 03, 2013, 02:49:29 PM
where
The 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

Keep on trolling, EOA don't let thinking people lure you out into the open.  Keep on hiding.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 07, 2013, 07:22:10 PM
@sarkeizen..out in the open you are forced to obey the laws of physics thus when theres an electrochemical potential difference,there is potential for work.decompression of gas at one electrode and compression at the other so that they may equalise in potential.notice the similarity to a schottky contact inbuilt potential with its different work functions. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 07, 2013, 09:07:48 PM
here we see the similarities of the above equilibriated karpenquenco system with a schottky energy diagram.the fermi energy band levels are pinned at a compensation point between the two different work functions resulting in an equilibrium energy barrier hill(gas pressure difference in a karpen cell at equilibrium) 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on November 08, 2013, 02:45:56 AM
out
The 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

Keep on trolling, EOA don't let thinking people lure you out into the open.  Keep on hiding.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: markdansie on November 08, 2013, 01:40:10 PM
This thread still going, I was surprised to see that. Any thing that can be measured?
Mark
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on November 08, 2013, 05:04:17 PM
This thread still going, I was surprised to see that. Any thing that can be measured?
Mark
I can't even get people to clearly state their claim.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 08, 2013, 05:30:50 PM
@markdansie i cant even get people to clearly measure a common concentration cell.they wont.they dont want to.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on November 08, 2013, 10:36:31 PM
@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:

a) You can not demonstrate that your test is valid.
b) You *SAID* I don't even need to OBSERVE that this is all predicted from textbooks.  Why do I have to build something if the textbooks clearly state you are right?  Because they don't.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 09, 2013, 07:47:33 AM
@sarkeizen a)if my test(ie.to directly measure its power over time) is not valid then what test in your opinion is valid. b)you still apparently think that im joking with you 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 @sarkeizen.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on November 10, 2013, 05:55:12 AM
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".
Quote
b)you still apparently think that im joking with you
I think you are either a very big idiot or a very big troll. 
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 10, 2013, 09:48:39 AM
@sarkeizen you make me laugh man.so i sell you a battery that powers itself and you now complain that you,re still not satisfied with our battery department,s service.hey listen bro i told you that if it runs anywhere near flat we shall refund naamsayn but if you keep trippin my ass ima change my mind naamsayn.whats wrong widjoo man
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on November 11, 2013, 03:16:18 AM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 11, 2013, 03:51:27 PM
lol!@sarkeizen..wake me up when you can work out how a concentration cell works..duhhhh..doh!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on November 11, 2013, 08:32:39 PM
@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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 11, 2013, 10:27:38 PM
@sarkeizen yet im capable of refering you to the section titled,'rules of electrochemical cells'. please apply @sarkeizen.what.is.wrong.widjoo.apply the rules @sarkeizen.apply the rules of cells @sarkeizen.no tricks,no deception,no jokes.apply the rules to a T.not a B or an A,or a Z.a T @sarkeizen.a T so precise,so scientificly conservative,so disgustingly non-artistic,non-creative.a T @sarkeizen.doesnt this frighten you?it should.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on November 11, 2013, 11:49:43 PM
@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:

i) You do not have access to textbooks.
ii) You have textbooks and are unwilling to look things up in them and report them here in a way that I can easily check.
iii) You have textbooks are willing too look things up in them and report them here in a way that I can easily check but the things you are talking about are not contained in them (or are not contained in them in a clear fashion which makes your point)

As these are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive (in the current situation) and since i) is exceptionally unlikely and ii) violates the social contract of the discussion the most likely candidate is iii) if you are being sincere.  If you're not then the likely case is ii).

So you keep making your argument less likely (or yourself more of a jerk) with every vacuous post.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 12, 2013, 06:41:08 AM
idono @sarkeizen you sound highly suspect.why would someone want a quotas when they was refered to a generalized textbook to calculate all relevant issues?its either because a)you dont understand chemistry textbooks and require help along the way,just say so if thats the case or b)you want to sabotage the claimants case by simply repeating the phrase,'but the emotional word everlasting isnt there' or c)your feelings are hurt by the possibility that the claimant is correct.which is it?the social contract was honoured when i wrote down the principals of electrochemistry earlier in the thread to assist your calculations.textbooks dont have emotional words like 'everlasting' in them even if something is everlasting.they speak just formulas and math.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on November 12, 2013, 02:46:23 PM
idono @sarkeizen you sound highly suspect.why would someone want a quotas
Just a cite EOA, that's what's been asked for and you said you would provide and you haven't.

Again either you have no access to textbooks, have access to them and will not provide them in a way that I can check or have access are willing to provide but they don't make your point.
Quote
they was refered to a generalized textbook to calculate all relevant issues
If 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.

Again this leaves us with a few mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive options:

i) You are not capable of making such an argument
ii) You are capable but are unwilling.
iii) You are capable and willing but the data simply does not support it.

If i) then your opinion is weaker than you claim it is, if ii) then you are violating the social contract of the discussion.  So again the most likely option, if you are being sincere and are at least knowledgeable enough to determine if you could make a logical argument is iii).

Your argument wasn't mutually exclusive or collectively exhaustive so your conclusion is not valid.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on November 12, 2013, 10:44:38 PM
profitis, have you considered to replicate the karpen pile with activated carbon. Surely the ginormous surface area of the material should have a profound effect on current.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 13, 2013, 07:51:51 PM
ive tried it all @broli.carbon rods from zinc-carbon batteries are actualy compressed activated carbon and they must be dewaxed,cleaned etc before use in karpen systems.for oxygen systems they give a good demonstration of a concentration cell coupled with e.g. silver cathodes in alkaline media but they tend to cling on to gases thus they arent really practical in this instance.they may,however,be highly practical for non-gasesous systems.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on November 13, 2013, 11:20:28 PM
Well yeah I assumed we were talking about a liquid system. Activated carbon comes in many different types, they can also be impregnated with different substances including silver. So a regular and impregnated electrode could be used for instance in such system.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 14, 2013, 04:26:27 AM
yes @broli.but it is better to use just plain silver with a highly blackened surface(electrolyticly anodized silver,sponge silver) seperate from the carbon otherwise you will have a cell within a cell,oxygen spillover from the silver to the carbon within the cathode itself. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 15, 2013, 07:43:41 PM
@sarkeizen its just the electrochemical variant of the following process.thats all it is.nothing more nothing less..totaly reversable.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on November 16, 2013, 02:49:06 AM
@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.

Your desire to imagine that some thing is just like some other thing is, of course irrelevant.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 16, 2013, 03:43:34 PM
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:   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: broli on November 16, 2013, 07:12:41 PM
Here's a different take on the above.

Quote
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:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0311104 (http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0311104)

The video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCCPeEKIVvQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCCPeEKIVvQ)

Different paper same team:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0509111 (http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0509111)

A different view on the experiment:
http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/5/1916
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 17, 2013, 06:50:42 PM
really interesting @broli.2 same work functions with the magnetic field acting as suppressor grid.what do you think would happen if we took Cs or barium and put it in close proximity(a few nanometers)from a high work function material eg gold and then bring it close to a magnetic field? Might solve hardcastles dilemma and do away with the need for that cumbersome middle suppressor grid.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on November 18, 2013, 03:34:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 18, 2013, 08:56:18 PM
errm @sarkeizen..formal argument?fail? 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 5)mathematicize.this @ sarkeizen is revolutionary..we are entering a new age with new energy sources.money is to be made.   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: markdansie on November 19, 2013, 12:48:17 PM
Still dreaming I see, good luck I hope it works
Mark
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 19, 2013, 06:52:45 PM
@markdansie..we dont believe in dreams.we dont believe in luck.we believe in something that can power an ipod or radio at a less expense,less effort than a plug-wall charger,or a chinese zinc-carbon. It works.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on November 19, 2013, 08:49:38 PM
errm @sarkeizen..formal argument?fail?
Yep.  You have failed to make your point.
Quote
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).
Quote
5)mathematicize.this
If 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.

How is this anything but you failing?
Quote
@ sarkeizen is revolutionary..we are entering a new age with new energy sources.money is to be made.
Nope.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 20, 2013, 06:28:12 PM
 running long enough can be tested @sarkeizen.long enough to divorce from the wall-plug.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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on November 20, 2013, 07:25:14 PM
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.
Quote
.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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 21, 2013, 10:00:59 PM
@sarkeizen..i have to disagree with you.if we have to prove that wikipedia is correct in its assumptions then it becomes a formal argument.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 08, 2013, 12:00:27 AM
@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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on December 08, 2013, 12:16:24 AM
The Quentron.com website's new simplified design seems to inspire all kinds of speculation. Some people think this is just another case of PJHs spontaneous emotional combustions we have seen come and go in recent years, while others speculate that this could very well be the result of patent attorney's advice following the influx of a significant investment.


Nobody except PJH knows for sure, but something seems to be going on behind the scenes, whatever it is. 


 ;D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 08, 2013, 08:44:18 AM
Lol @sarkeizen.wheres your demand for a promised citation gone to? That was your strongpoint you should stick to it but stooping to tantrums is a new lowpoint for you. dissappointing man.wikipaedia,s mathematical work function formula is correct whichever way you want to look at it.it can be put to the test.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 08, 2013, 02:21:17 PM
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
Quote
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.
Quote
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...

However, we both know you don't have that, or anything like that... :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 08, 2013, 03:57:34 PM
Except i didnt fail in that respect @ sarkeizen.i provided the audience with a clear,diagramed explanation integrated with known facts.my explanation can be thoroughly exhaustively tested to see if it fits the bill 3-dimensionaly and thats what makes it tilt so enormously powerfuly in my favour.the wikipaedia formula is the cherry ontop because it forces you to acknowledge that karpen wasnt necessarily a crapster ie. that 2 same gaseous electrodes of different work functions will absolutely behave as predicted by and for that formula.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 08, 2013, 08:48:15 PM
Except i didnt
Do 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)
Quote
i provided the audience with
...nothing like what as asked for.
1) Is a diagram is a textbook cite?  Nope.
2) Is a diagram a *formal* logical argument.  Nope.

How do we know?  If it was 1) then you could simply tell me which textbook it is from, the edition and then I could check.  This would be a textbook cite.  You haven't so it's not 1).  If it was 2) then I would have a written out set of steps which it is IMPOSSIBLE to come to any other conclusion.  I don't.  So it's not 2).

If I don't have 1) and 2) then your argument isn't nearly as strong as you claimed.

Hence you failed.    I'm sure it's not the first time either. :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 09, 2013, 10:54:42 AM
I think theres a misunderstanding between you and me @sarkeizen.im trying to prove that the wikipaedia formula is correct.correct.E=wf+contact potential with electrolyte is correct.2 gaseous electrodes,2 different work functions =battery.eg. cathode work function 1: O2 + 4H+ +4e- =2H2O. anode work function 2: 2H2O= O2 + 4H+ + 4e-.the end result is simply passage of gas from one electrode to the other in a closed system.the intrinsic work function differences remain constant eg gold remains gold,platinum remains platinum(under normal circumstances).
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 11, 2013, 04:28:54 PM
I think theres a misunderstanding between you and me @sarkeizen.im trying to prove that the wikipaedia formula is correct
Sorry.  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"

My position was that you would be unable to support "It must be possible to create a device that will power something like an ipod forever" with textbook cites.  So far I am correct.  I think you know I'm right and have been spending months trying to wiggle out of what you said.

Truth appears to be that text books do not clearly indicate that "It must be possible to create a device that will power something like an ipod forever".  So your argument that the <whatever> pile is based on textbook knowledge has failed.

Again I'm sure you will continue to fail, such is your life.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 11, 2013, 07:17:59 PM
Perhaps this article will make things a bit clearer for you @sarkeizen www.researchgate.net/publication/243187093_The_effect_of_catalyst-electrode_potential_and_work_function_on_the_chemisorptive_bond_of_oxygen_on_Pt_interfaced_with_YSZ .here you see a direct relation between work function of a gaseous electrode and its binding ability to the respective gas.they change the electrode potential to shift the work function here.we change the work function to shift the potential in karpen,s formula.gold remains gold.platinum remains platinum.a little clearer for you now?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 11, 2013, 09:28:52 PM
Perhaps this article will make things a bit clearer for you
Can 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?"
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 11, 2013, 10:51:00 PM
yes yes yes @sarkeizen.those guys showed that altercation of the electrode potential in a single gaseous electrode in contact with solid electrolyte(YSZ) induced a work function change and hence a gas-adsorptive capacity change.thus they conclude that the electrostatic (non-faradaic) electrode potential of a given metalic surface,eg. gold or platinum will directly affect the tightness to which it binds to the respective gas.thus platinum and gold will hold onto eg.oxygen gas to different degrees due to different electrostatic potentials,different work functions.its because of this that oxygen gas has two different potentials in the karpen setup and its because of this that the karpen setup will pump oxygen gas from one electrode to the other,ie.so that the oxygen potential evens out.the oxygen potential does even out temporarily on discharge because gas simply diffuses back to an even distribution when we switch the cell off.platinum and gold,s work function difference and potential difference(electrostatic,non-faradaic) remain constant and unaltered in the cell,only gas moves and ions(electrolyte) move,and of course electrons move via external circuit.nothing can permanently change here.it means wikipedias formula e=wf+contact potential with electrolyte is proven correct by karpen,s crapster and vice versa ie.we can integrate it with textbooks smoothly
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 11, 2013, 11:36:53 PM
yes yes yes
Doubful
Quote
Those guys showed
Hyper 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.
rac
Come back when you can do something other than fail.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 12, 2013, 12:40:57 AM
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.but we know you wont @sarkeizen,disgusting man.you force me to spill my secrets out here then you shout,'not enough'.your a disgrace to the energy movements.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 12, 2013, 01:21:29 AM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
.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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 12, 2013, 01:59:04 AM
except that that little journal was but one out of thousands coming to the same conclusion you silly man.in fact so many journals came to the same conclusion that theyve christened it the 'nemca'effect @sarkeizen.its now officialy textbook material @sarkeizen.check it up in wikipedia @sarkeizen.karpens crapster is powered by the nemca effect @sarkeizen. and dont insult our FREE-energy website with its FREE-energy seekers ne.its here for a reason.   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 13, 2013, 02:05:16 AM
except that that little journal was but one out of thousands coming to the same conclusion you silly man
Same problem. No cite.  No argument. Hence you are failing.
Quote
.in fact so many journals came to the same conclusion
If 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.
Quote
its now officialy textbook material
Then 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.
Quote
and dont insult our FREE-energy website with its FREE-energy seekers ne
I didn't insult them.  I described them.  Accurately.  Free energy movement collectively has about as much skepticism as a child who believes in Santa.
Quote
.its here for a reason.
I agree, it's here because we have people who are idle, insecure, uninformed and uncritical.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 13, 2013, 05:13:14 AM
no @sarkeizen.you will see that i am correct in a laboratory ie.that only a pressure difference across any karpen electrodes will halt their power output,bring them to rest equilibrium.the differential nemca effect will remain on a permanent basis otherwise and result in continuous gaseous potential difference and hence power output in nothing less than total violation of the 2nd law thermodynamics.you will see zero corrosion of electrodes as the nemca effect is non-faradaic,electrostatic.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 16, 2013, 03:50:41 PM
no @sarkeizen.you will see that i am correct in a laboratory
So wait...at first you said that I don't need to do anything but look at textbooks.
Then you couldn't tell me which ones.
Then you claimed you did (but didn't)
Then you said I have to build it.
Now you say I need a laboratory?

At what point do you actually admit that you failed to make your point?  i.e. That all we need to look at are textbooks.

Don't you think post hoc claiming that a) You can't show me which textbooks, b) I need to build it myself - to perform a test that is meaningless I might add and c) that I need to do so in a laboratory is more than a little deceptive?  As in "winner of most deceptive thesis of the year award", kind of deceptive?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 16, 2013, 05:09:06 PM
you can try the thing wherever you want @sarkeizen.in your lounge,in the pool,underground,in outer space,it will work,nonstop.the nemca effect is the nemca effect case closed,slam dunk.we can now directly mathematicly tie work function,voltage,gas chemisorption,gas liberation and ...entropy...into one formula that is totaly compliant and dependant upon well accepted standards.let us celebrate @sarkeizen for 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 16, 2013, 07:37:15 PM
let me put everything into perspective for you @sarkeizen.karpen,s cell obeys the 2nd law thermodynamics to a T when we switch it on.karpen,s cell obeys the 2nd law thermodynamics to a T when we switch it off.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 17, 2013, 06:30:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 17, 2013, 08:39:25 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 17, 2013, 07:46:39 PM
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'm sure they're both keeping you company troll-boy.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 17, 2013, 08:44:00 PM
i dont see how the commonest,most widespread rules governing concentration cells can possibly be informal @sarkeizen please explain.and while youre at it please explain your accusation of informality on the common nemca effect and its direct effect on gaseous electrode potential.and while your at that please explain your informality accusation on the well-established thermodynamics of all of the above.you owe us that much after repeated cries of 'informality' sir.dontcha think?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 17, 2013, 09:26:32 PM
i dont see how the commonest,most widespread rules governing concentration cells can possibly be informal
If 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.
Quote
and while youre at it please explain your accusation of informality
I 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.

Let me know when you fix these things.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 17, 2013, 09:54:49 PM
series of steps,except there is only 1 step man,dont make me angry now @sarkeizen.if i was a teacher in a college and i asked the students to build an oxygen-electrode concentration cell at ambient pressure,temperature,what cell are they going to build except a karpen cell @sarkeizen.they are forced to have only one choice but to build an karpen-type thingy in direct accordance with textbook rules @sarkeizen.one step.one thermodynamics.one conclusion.i cant give you more than one step to such a common theme @sarkeizen.a karpen cell obeys the rules of thermodynamics,in two ways.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 18, 2013, 07:01:48 PM
series of steps,except there is only 1 step man
Then 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.
Quote
,dont make me angry now
Don't make me laugh.
Quote
i cant give you more than one step to such a common theme
Any 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. 

See, as soon as you start talking logic.  You lose.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 18, 2013, 08:12:13 PM
bravo. except i won this race looong ago @sarkeizen.because this discussion is after the fact.ie.this discussion is now to suss out whats going down in the buildable,testable 3-d everlasting thing,after the fact.so lets cater to your request for multiple inescapable steps then just for the sake of post-argument.step 1: im a teacher in college and i demand construction of a e.g. hydrogen electrode concentration cell from you,the student.i also demand construction of a copper-electrode concentration cell from you,the student.do you agree that step 1 thus so far is crystal clear and,in your words,forced inescapable logic @sarkeizen.do you agree yes or no.if no please state a reason.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 18, 2013, 09:09:51 PM
except i won this race looong ago
Nope.  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.

Quote
step 1: im a teacher in college and i demand construction of a e.g. hydrogen electrode concentration cell from you,the student
Step 1a: I tell you to go away troll-boy.

I'm not a student, you are not a teacher.  I have no idea how to build anything of the sort, nor do I know what you mean by your terms.  Not to mention that this step doesn't - as discussed - appear to stem from a cite from a textbook so it doesn't make your argument (and if it does then it's not "crystal clear" so it fails there too)

Some advice, start with a cite from a textbook.  That's how you can make the argument "All you need is textbooks"

I wonder if people tell you, you're good at arguing.  If so, you should gently let those people know they are pretty stupid.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 19, 2013, 01:55:28 AM
my my.now one thing is  crystal clear: i AM a teacher in your case @sarkeizen.you know nothing about concentration cell college basics it seems.i was going to start uploading textbook quotas for everyone as step 2 proceeded but i see you are now stuck on step 1, which is one of the basicest questions of the formal college basics on concentration cells.did you not do electrochemistry in college @sarkeizen.they often ask the students to build very specific types of cells.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 exams.do you agree with the logic of this hypothetical demand or not @sarkeizen.if not please make yourself agree with it so that i can proceed to uploaded textbook citations in support of its logicity and hence in support of an self-powered ipod.you wanted steps,now help us move to step 2
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 19, 2013, 04:35:32 AM
my my.now one thing is  crystal clear: i AM a teacher in your case
Not 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.
Quote
@sarkeizen.you know nothing about concentration cell college basics
So 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.
Quote
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 exams
Considering 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...

Quote
do you agree with the logic of this hypothetical demand or not
Since 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. 

Congratulations on your big steaming cup of fail.

Quote
so that i can proceed to uploaded textbook citations
Dude 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.

If you want to make a formal argument you should make clear your set of assumptions, support them from textbook cites then introduce your steps going from there to your conclusion.  Anything else is begging the question.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 19, 2013, 06:45:56 AM
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.do you now think that this is a reasonable and logic hypothetical demand @sarkeizen.if not why dont you just pretend that you think it is so that we can move forward onto step number 2 @sarkeizen.you,re holding me and the audience up now,the letters E.O.A. come to mind.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 19, 2013, 07:19:42 AM
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?

I find the mandated fun to be abhorrent and withdraw from the class.  The teacher weeps openly at the loss of such a great mind and wonders why they ever decided to be such a totalitarian dick.

Ever thought of making this about an argument rather than people?  It might go more quickly.  Your choice though be as stupid as you like.

Quote
why dont you just pretend that you think it is so
Uh, 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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 19, 2013, 08:29:33 AM
because the hypothetical questions by the varsity teacher are pertinent to me showing everybody the enormous obstructionist asshole that you are @sarkeizen. varsity teachers shoot their questions in direct proportion to written text from text-books thus your refusal to answer to the logicity of very real potential questions that may rise up in princeton,for exams,or for fun, show us that you are here today on one mission:to win .E.O.A. of the year award.im not going to show one single quote until you answer that question,which makes up part 1 of a several step series of evidence of a self-powered battery.answer that question for us @sarkeizen.do you think its logical for a college or varsity teacher to ask a student to build a hydrogen and copper concentration cell.just answer yes or no please.no other words,just yes or no.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 19, 2013, 01:56:30 PM
im not going to show one single quote
I know.

Nor will you cite a text or do anything to progress the argument.  Otherwise you would have likely done all that ages ago.  Putting an arbitrary requirement "If you do X I'll do Y" is just a transparent lie and one that you have already tried.
Quote
until you answer that question
Then 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.

Glad that you have finally come clean about that.

Also is there a reason you are barely able to write English? or is this just a way to keep your troll-account separate from your other less trollish accounts?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 19, 2013, 07:07:45 PM
except it was you who requested a 'series of inescapable steps to force a conclusion' @sarkeizen.clearly you are either unwilling or incapable of reaching a consensus for step 1.step 1 is crucial for determining your competency for the next few steps @sarkeizen.your stubborn refusal to answer my question sheds more light on your incompetency than if you had just answered 'no' and then stood your ground.congratulations,you bailed out of your own argument @sarkeizen.saves me the hassle. And now you want to be my english teacher as compensation for your inability to be a good science student?pah!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 19, 2013, 07:41:14 PM
except it was you who requested a 'series of inescapable steps to force a conclusion'
And which you haven't provided.

If you read carefully, which you didn't.  What is being said is that *IF* you cannot provide a textbook cite which clearly forces your conclusion.  Then you need to provide a textbook cite and a series of steps to force your conclusion from there.  Anything else is you just making things up.
Quote
@sarkeizen.clearly you are either unwilling or incapable of reaching a consensus for step 1
If 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.
So thanks for admitting that you lost the argument. :D :D :D :D :D

Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 19, 2013, 07:55:54 PM
no you showed that step 1 forced a major ginormous conclusion @sarkeizen.you showed that you are de facto totaly incompetent to stand trial in this karpen case.i asked a question that 99.9% of the scientist population groups would give the thumbs-up for.tell you what,go and phone or email your local varsity science department and ask them if my question is logic @sarkeizen.i,l wait here for your 1)answer and 2)explanation.since you want to be the expert on formatting logic,we wait for your reply from the mouths of the real mcoy...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 19, 2013, 08:31:29 PM
l wait here for your 1)answer and 2)explanation
The 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.

Do you not know what "forced" means?  Do you not realize how your step 1 does not force your conclusion?


Quote
.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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 19, 2013, 09:25:46 PM
how can step 1 force anything unless step 1 is answered and then debated @sarkeizen.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 it.and seriously,must you always deflect attention away from your incompetency onto my english when you feel cornered? Cmon man,just answer step 1 please @sarkeizen im begging (me begging you to enter into a situation where you will be totaly cornered)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 19, 2013, 09:57:24 PM
how can step 1 force anything
i) Socrates is a man; all men are mortal
ii) Socrates is mortal.

Step i) forces step ii).
Quote
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 it
No I'm being perfectly fair.  Asking someone to pretend something true is false isn't fair.  Oh hey...that's you. :D

Putting it in baby-talk for you:  If step 1 is necessary but not NECESSARILY TRUE then your argument goes nowhere. 

Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 19, 2013, 10:33:20 PM
superman is a man.not all men are mortal.socrates is a man.socrates may not be mortal. you see,i unforced your conclusion by PARTICIPATING in the debate @sarkeizen.it takes at least 2 people to debate an alleged forced conclusion before the conclusion can be forced.the outcome consensus between those 2 people determines truth.2 billion people believe in god @sarkeizen.another 2 billion dont.which 2 billion is correct and real.they have to DEBATE it out to find truth.concentration cells are logic.a hydrogen concentration cell is a hydrogen concentration cell.a hydrogen concentration cell is logic. You see,your formula works for me too @sarkeizen so lets debate it yes? My english is fine,its your competency for debate that is highly suspect. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 19, 2013, 10:59:48 PM
superman is a man.not all men are mortal.socrates is a man.socrates may not be mortal. you see,i unforced your conclusion
Nope.  Are you really not getting it, or is this just more trolling?

My statement i) FORCES statement ii).  That is *given* i) then ii) is necessary and unavoidable.  Your agreement in i) is irrelevant (at this point).  However in your very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very stupid case.  There are so many potential outcomes that your statement i) forces nothing.  Hence even if I were to agree it demonstrates nothing.

Hence it's not a formal logical argument.  So regardless of what it's based on it can't make your point.   So if your "step 1" is NECESSARY then your argument is invalid.

Try again troll-boy. Please attempt to be less stupid.
Quote
My english is fine
I 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 20, 2013, 12:46:15 AM
your statement example forces nothing but a year-long debate and a noddy-badge @sarkeizen.my statement example creates a set borderline for the rationale of the whole argument man,be realistic now.quit fooling around and launch the debate with a simple yes or no @sarkeizen.your graduation from 2nd law lawyer to kindergarten english master happened very suddenly,like ever since i threw step 1 on the table.did anyone else notice this? All of the audience yes.co-incidence?nope.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 20, 2013, 01:05:10 AM
your statement example forces nothing
Then 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.

Quote
my statement
Can'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.
Quote
your graduation from 2nd law lawyer to kindergarten english master happened very suddenly
Not 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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 20, 2013, 07:48:33 PM
quit fooling and just launch the debate @sarkeizen.all you have to do is answer step 1 for us.your holding us(me and the audience)...up.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 20, 2013, 08:16:03 PM
quit fooling and just launch the debate
Uh...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.

Haven't you just conceded my point? I mean...

You have said that no textbook actually states this clearly...your words.
You have said that you can't make a logical argument purely on the basis of what is described in textbooks.
You have said that it's absolutely essential that I fulfill some weird fantasy of yours where I'm in a classroom.
You have said that it absolutely requires *debate* - so it's *debatable* that you can create such a device.

So in addition to textbooks you need to debate it, so your argument is much weaker than you implied.  If it is ESSENTIAL to have a debate, then again textbooks are not sufficient. 

So again.  You have conceded my point.
Quote
all you have to do is answer step 1
Is step 1 a question? It wasn't phrased as a question.  If your English was better...
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 20, 2013, 08:40:42 PM
step 1 doesnt require debate.it requires common sense.since you refuse to use common sense in the first step,how do we know if you are competent enough to cognize reality @sarkeizen.in other words,step 1 is a test for your sanity @sarkeizen.e.g. i can tell an insane person,'air is seethrough'and then risk a barrage of attacks on insane premises of argument.im not prepared to work here for nothing @sarkeizen.in other words im not prepared to tell you how a hydrogen concentration cell works and then be blasted halfway on my stupidity for building and testing such a device,and then be chased off the thread over such trivialities.thus step 1 is crucial to determine your sanity and competency beforehand @sarkeizen. see now?oh,and step 1 is a question.a yes or no question.you couldnt see that?speaking of cognisense..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 20, 2013, 10:14:47 PM
step 1 doesnt require debate.
And yet you said...
Quote from: profitis
step 1 is answered and then debated
Apparently step 1 does require debate....let me know when you figure out what you are saying.
Quote
it requires common sense.since you refuse to use common sense
I 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.

If that is your argument then, you really only have a few options:

i) A textbook will clearly say this or
ii)  It will be an unavoidable inference from what textbooks do say

If it isn't i) then it must be ii) because if it isn't ii) then you need more than textbooks.  If you need more than textbooks then your argument is false.  With me so far?

You have admitted that i) is not the case and now you say that ii) is only true if I play out some weird fantasy of yours.  Since your weird fantasy is not part of any textbook then ii) is *avoidable* therefore ii) can not be true.

So either provide an argument that is unavoidable OR admit that you have lost.  It's likely the later but I don't really expect you be able to see that.

Quote
im not prepared to work here for nothing
Don'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.

Quote
step 1 is crucial to determine your sanity and competency beforehand
Either 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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 20, 2013, 11:06:46 PM
@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..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 20, 2013, 11:53:25 PM
@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?

Anyway...If what you wrote is step 1 and it forces nothing, then it's not a formal logical argument.  You agreed to this remember?  I can show you where you said that you would create a series of steps where each one FORCES the next.

If it forces something, you should be able to say what it forces.  However since you can't this seems just another way you are attempting to avoid the question at hand.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 21, 2013, 08:15:38 AM
@sarkeizen.it forces your COMPETENCY.it forces our ability to determine your ability to understand what is about to be quoted.its no use for me to quote e.g. 'ducks lay eggs in winter'directly from a textbook then you go and tell me that that is insufficient as proof.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 21, 2013, 03:52:32 PM
@sarkeizen.it forces your COMPETENCY
You said yourself, that it can be answered yes or no and that from there the answer is debated.  Right?
Any question which can be answered in both directions can not force anything.  That is the definition of "force" that only one outcome is possible.  So again, you are wrong. 
Quote
.it forces our ability to determine your ability to understand what is about to be quoted
i) 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.

ii) If only one question was necessary to absolutely determine someones ability to read an electrochemistry text with 100% accuracy (0 false positives and 0 false negatives) then there of course would be some published research on this subject (how would you determine this otherwise?).   So where is it?  So while you may like to *pretend* that this is true.  Clearly it's not 100% true (according to you only 99.9% of scientists would agree) hence it can not force anything.  Anything less than 100% is not forcing.

iii) We both know you have no intention of citing anything.  You have had about a hundred opportunities to do so and you haven't.  The way you could prove me wrong is by actually citing something relevant.
Quote
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".

However with a cite it might be possible to determine which of those things is meant.

Anyway, since you agree that nothing is forced by this statement (your own words say this exact thing).  Is there any chance you're going to get off your lazy ass and do some work here?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 21, 2013, 04:38:46 PM
can i ask you a question @sarkeizen?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 21, 2013, 05:53:07 PM
can i ask you a question @sarkeizen?
You just did. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 21, 2013, 09:11:51 PM
but i got no 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..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 22, 2013, 12:20:37 AM
but i got no reply.
Actually you did.  You just don't like the reply. 
Quote
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"?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 22, 2013, 08:02:43 AM
in your case yes @sarkeizen.your answer will definitely help the audience force a irreversable conclusion.so why dont you help us out by answering my question?you can answer it just for the sake of answering it sir...why be shy.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 22, 2013, 08:13:40 AM
in your case yes @sarkeizen.your answer will definitely help the audience force
Are 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?

It sounds like the later. :D  Why so shy about being clear about what you're saying....seems pretty shifty to me. :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 22, 2013, 08:32:08 AM
no no.im saying it will force the audience to make up their minds about the validity of everything you,ve said in this thread @sarkeizen.in fact,your refusal to answer it is making them question your validity as we speak.so im actualy enjoying this (-:
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 22, 2013, 03:31:17 PM
no no.im saying it will force the audience
So 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?

Also doesn't that make you a liar yet again?  It sure seemed like you said that you would provide an irrefutable series of steps to "You can show that you can build an ipod charger that will work forever just from reading textbooks".




Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 22, 2013, 04:54:23 PM
it forces everything about the argument.your validity,therefore your case about the argument.do you think it is logical for a science teacher to ask a student to build certain batteries for exams @sarkeizen.im ready to give you all the citations you ever dreamed of.all the quotes.all the logic.but not before you answer my question straightforward.what is holding you back @sarkeizen.dont hold us back with you please @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 @sarkeizen.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 22, 2013, 10:50:41 PM
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.

I think you need to take some time and figure out exactly what you're saying.

Quote
your validity
You'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.

Quote
therefore your case about the argument
Dude.  Are you really that stupid?  I suppose you are, or just that much of a troll.

The majority of my 100 odd posts can be phrased as "Show me", since the crux of your argument is that one can learn this from textbooks it is reasonable that the evidence come from textbooks.  Although it's novel...in a stupid way...that you would try to demonstrate this without textbooks.  Anyway that's pretty much my case: "Show me".  So clearly your question can have no bearing on that. 

Your posts can be pretty much summed up as: "I can't" phrased in various convoluted ways with long lists of excuses, lies and evasions.
Quote
im ready to give you all the citations you ever dreamed of.all the quotes.all the logic
You are likely lying.  You told this lie before and you continue to lie about other things steadily eroding your credibility.

You have offered nothing.  You have no citations or formal logic - if you had either you could have ended this argument - or at least PROGRESSED it ages ago.  What you want me to agree to is just another attempt to distract from the point.  Which is the textbook evidence for your position and the formal logical argument which moves us from the evidence in textbooks to the conclusion.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 22, 2013, 11:21:18 PM
do you think that a battery will work until its flat @sarkeizen.(im putting questions like these to you to catch you out.corner you and bombard you with textbook citations as soon as you answer any of them.help me to help you please :-)test me)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 23, 2013, 01:29:08 AM
do you think that a battery will work until its flat
If by "flat" you mean it won't work anymore then sure but if "flat" means something else then it depends on what you mean.
Quote
bombard you with textbook citations as soon as you answer any of them
Please stop lying.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 23, 2013, 02:21:54 PM
i mean wont work anymore yes @sarkeizen.thus we conclude that a hydrogen concentration cell must run,at some point,flat @sarkeizen,incapable of doing any more work correct?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 23, 2013, 03:28:28 PM
At least you stopped lying.  If something will not work anymore then it will have stopped working.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 23, 2013, 04:45:50 PM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 23, 2013, 05:52:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 23, 2013, 11:21:05 PM
if you scroller down here www.chem.queensu.ca/people/faculty/mombourquette/Chem221/8_Equilibrium/Electrochem.asp to the section titled 'electrode concentration cells' you will see the category for our cell @sarkeizen.hydrogen gas is the species.i.e. platinum will soak up a vastly different amount of hydrogen gas than gold will.enough to create a voltage up to 1volt in fact.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 24, 2013, 04:29:42 AM
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 24, 2013, 07:24:58 AM
@sarkeizen 1) all ambient pressure gaseous electrode concentration cells must have a gas pressure difference in them after switched on.  2)all ambient pressure gaseous electrode concentration cells must have zero gas pressure difference in them when switched off therefore 3)all ambient pressure gaseous electrode concentration cells must be able to run flat,incapable of doing any more work,over and over again ad infinitum in a repeatable cycle due to gas pressure differentials during on/off phases.you dont need any more cites.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 24, 2013, 07:45:08 AM
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.

You did promise "all the cites and logic I could ever dream of" but "promise" to you means "lie" right?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 24, 2013, 05:24:13 PM
 maybe you do need more clarity.check out the example under sub-title 'electrode concentration cells' here www.emedicalprep.com/study-material/chemistry/electro-chemistry/concentration-cells.html .this is an example of a non-ambient pressure hydrogen electrode concentration cell.they use identical work-function electrodes and begin with a pressure differential,and end with equal pressure.we use different work-function electrodes,begin with equal pressure and end with differential pressure @sarkeizen.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 24, 2013, 08:15:34 PM
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. 

Again, not one cite and yet I was promised all I could dream of.  I wonder why lying is so easy for you?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 25, 2013, 12:23:39 AM
did my posted links not just explain to you how an electrode concentration cell works @sarkeizen..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 25, 2013, 03:01:28 AM
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. 

Again, not one cite and yet I was promised all I could dream of.  I wonder why lying is so easy for you?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 25, 2013, 07:55:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 26, 2013, 02:02:04 AM
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.

If you're not actually going to answer my questions then you aren't actually discussing anything with me.  You're talking to yourself.  Which is fine, but I doubt that's someone you need to convince of your delusions.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 26, 2013, 08:12:51 AM
what you wanted was to learn how a certain class of concentration cells power themselves forever @sarkeizen.i showed you the relevant text from education institutions,enough to use your formula for logic to deduce everlasting behavior: these cells must equalize electrode concentrations,therefore they must pump gas from one electrode to the other,therefore they go flat with a pressure differiential,therefore they are capable of decompression when switched off and return to original status. Discharge,compression.relaxation,decompression.its as simple as that @sarkeizen.im the electrochemist here,you may bombard me with questions relevant to this class of concentration cell,the ambient pressure gaseous electrode concentration cell.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 26, 2013, 02:58:01 PM
heres another way to prove a self-charging cell using textbooks: here,s a standard hydrogen electrode www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/redoxeqia/helectrode.gif .if you change anything in this electrode e.g. if we use smooth platinum instead of blackened platinum we will get a non-standard,different voltage from it.we apply your formula for logic @sarkeizen: a smooth platinum electrode and a standard platinum electrode under 1atm h2 at 298kelvin will constitute an standard pressure electrode concentration cell.one electrode will pump hydrogen onto the other in order to equilibrize potentials resulting in a gas pressure differential.ie. in pure logical terms that everyone can understand,theres a potential difference between a standard and non-standard gaseous electrode.work can be done.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 26, 2013, 05:28:35 PM
what you wanted was to learn how a certain class of concentration cells power themselves forever
Nope.  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.

I have asked for exactly those things so many times that you would really have to be the stupidest person who ever lived not to realize that's what I want.  I have even explained why that is important and why what you are doing is insufficient.  Again only an exceptionally unintelligent person would not recognize that.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 26, 2013, 05:59:58 PM
Sigghh..a standard h2 electrode (o.o volt) + a non standard h2 electrode (something other than o.o volt) = electric cell @sarkeizen.do you honestly not remember your school electrochemistry.anode:h2 = 2h+ + 2e-. Cathode: 2h+ + 2e- = h2.these are the only possible reactions thus gas must be compressed...DURING ON PHASE.decompressed...DURING OFF PHASE.you would think that the fact that anyone can test this would convince you but no.its no wonder hardcastle deserted you.you wont even listen to reproducible evidence!   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 26, 2013, 06:55:59 PM
you would think that the fact that anyone can test this would convince you but no
Wasn'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. 
Quote
.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.

If Phillip's experimental evidence was so clear and reproducible there would be no trouble convincing a significant number of people.  However it's not convincing people because as many here have noted it's rather far from clear cut but hey I just gave you a chance to vent all those conspiracy and prejudice theories that you fantasize about.

So go nuts...(or simply further so)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 27, 2013, 07:59:30 AM
well since these karpen systems work then hardcastle has a chance for success,if he can manage to construct the thermionics appropriately @sarkeizen. Btw check out http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_cell go down to subtitle 'oxygen concentration cell' and substitute a corrosion-resistant material e.g. 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.when i say karpen device i mean an ambient pressure gas electrode concentration cell.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 27, 2013, 08:25:17 AM
well since these karpen systems work
"work"?! You mean forever?  How can you *observe* something working forever in less time than...forever?

So technically you have zero idea that they "work" in that sense.  Now if there was a textbook that explained the theory...but there isn't or it's on a shelf too high for you to reach or you just enjoy being an obstructionist asshole more...or some other less credible excuse.
Quote
then hardcastle has a chance for success,if he can manage to construct the thermionics appropriately
Why not say: "He will be able to reconstruct the philosophers stone if he can catch enough unicorn dust?" it's pretty much equivalent.

Quote
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.

If you have some reason to believe that the textbooks say you can construct something that can *run* forever.  Like you said before but haven't provided any reason for saying that...

You should just provide a textbook cite and your argument from that but if you could do that well you might actually be doing something with your life. :-)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 27, 2013, 09:08:39 AM
yeah i mean forever man.and ever and ever and ever.like i said,forever becomes irrelevant as long as your ipod doesnt need to be plugged in or shoved into the sunshine for its life,s(the ipod,s) duration.yes hardcastle,and everyone else who are investigating duo-entropy systems have a massive chance of success.if one duo-entropy system works then others are very likely possible.if you had bothered to put your reading glasses on and read my prior message properly you wouldve seen that when i say karpen device i mean concentration cell.constructive?yes @sarkeizen,all these cells ive discussed above are constructable.all of them.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 27, 2013, 09:20:48 AM
 a textbook cite? Lol,i just asked you to integrate platinum INTO the wikipedia text,nevermind take wikipedia text and bring it here for citation purposes.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on December 27, 2013, 02:42:36 PM
Hi All,


A belated seasons greetings, hope you are all enjoying good times with your family and friends.


I hope 2014 brings joy to us all and a better deal for the poor.


My belief in delivering the technology that will change forever power generation remains 100%.


I achieved many things in 2013, repeated replication of the sebby effect, manufacture of a 1.2nm operational film that performed as a Tunnel diode. All that remains is to do a batch C Quenco with a lower barrier height, in reality a small step in a long journey to date.


I have received generous support from many professionals at a number of Universities around the World, and financial support from a few corporations to help me stretch my own funds a lot further. Fabrication of research nano films is an expensive thing to do and we have spent our money wisely to get where we did, above all we learnt what to do to make a working Quenco batch C (or at least we think we do, but as always the proof is in the pudding).


I will be posting an update in late January re Sebby and Quenco.


Best Wishes
Phil H
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 27, 2013, 03:36:27 PM
hey phil.greetings from south africa mate.glad to see your still in the game :-)..im enjoying my time with sarkshmeizen here,he,s making me look good.im gona get him shmangled now on this wikipedia article watch me.. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 27, 2013, 06:22:25 PM
yeah i mean forever man.and ever and ever and ever.like i said,forever
So how did you observe it lasting forever?
Quote
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.
Quote
.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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 27, 2013, 10:30:48 PM
i,l answer your enquiries in series @sarkeizen: A) i watched it totaly flatten.then i watched it totaly recharge itself.something to take note of? B)violate information and complexity theory? But arent these just theories? C)no.not strictly by reading textbooks.you can build them aswell BUT if your lazy then you CAN try integrating platinum into the wikipedia article i gave you on oxygen concentration cells.havent you done this yet? Why not? Need help?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 27, 2013, 10:48:46 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
C)no.not strictly by reading textbooks.
But some complete and total moron who happens to have the same name as you said
Quote
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.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 27, 2013, 11:43:38 PM
@sarkeizen..A) well its observing something recharging itself.cant complain ey. B)a theory in science is just a theory e.g. some scientists agree with relativity theory and others dont.a theory becomes law when it changes to official certainty,however, some official certainties are perception-based and thus undergo regular official change.question: does your math laws allow for 2 interchangable maximum entropy states @sarkeizen? Would be interesting to know. C) it is written AND predicted in the biggest textbook under section 'oxygen concentration cells' in wikipedia.you just have to substitute platinum for other metals and go from there by rules.DID YOU DO THIS YET @sarkeizen.why not?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 28, 2013, 01:34:17 AM
@sarkeizen..A) well its observing something recharging itself
Again, please state clearly.  Did you observe something operating FOREVER?
Quote
B)a theory in science is just a theory
However 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. 
Quote
C) it is written AND predicted in the biggest textbook
You 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".

Cite.  Produce a piece of text from a respected textbook that unquestionably  makes your case and the title and page number.  That's what you said you could do.  If you can't please man up and admit this is no longer your position.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 28, 2013, 07:52:39 AM
A)well i observed a mosquito flying round my room like forever yeah @sarkeizen.(try making your question more palatable next time). B)neither i nor you know what phillip has in front of him so its too pre-mature to determine this assumption. C) wikipaedia is a library,the most widely used library in the world in fact.it has borrowed a giant chunk of its info from all the other libraries round the world so can i use it to do that cite @sarkeizen.im begging you please :-).it,l have more impact i promise you. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 28, 2013, 05:41:57 PM
A)well i observed a mosquito
Did you observe the battery running forever? Please answer instead of being an obstructionist asshole (again).
Quote
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?
Quote
so can i use it to do that cite
Nope.  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.

Please admit you can't properly support (provide a cite) for your original statement.  Come on, you can do it.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 28, 2013, 06:16:48 PM
A)can you be more specific? B)im saying you have to ask phillip questions pertaining to phillip.how should i know @sarkeizen? C)aww cmon man.wikipedia is very well respected by the crowd @sarkeizen.who,s gona care what some old book from some old library says?.i want to make an impression for the young science student viewers also @sarkeizen.the library is far from my place and i,d have to hunt the books with a similar tune as that wiki article anyways so it may aswell be wiki @sarkeizen.i want wiki @sarkeizen.please? (-:
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 28, 2013, 06:24:56 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
aww cmon man.wikipedia is very well respected by the crowd
You 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?

Come on, just admit you can not support your original argument and make up a new one but first you have to come clean. be honest and man up.  Say it.  You can't support your original statement.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 29, 2013, 01:24:48 AM
A) is this a trick question?you gota be kidding me man.B)a real-life maxwell demon is a totaly passive thing @sarkeizen.for example,you get some types of perpetuum mobile using osmosis membranes.these let water through but hold salts back,without erasing information,without active sorting.you are going to have to integrate passive demons into your theories if necessary.C) well i had to resort to explaining everything via the nernst equation but i see now that that wont even be necessary because of this wiki article.i should thank you for pressuring me into discovering this little jewel @sarkeizen so let me use it ok?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 29, 2013, 02:04:30 AM
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.

Quote
a real-life maxwell demon is a totaly passive thing
Wrong.  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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 29, 2013, 11:40:25 AM
A) see.i knew it was a trick question.who is eternal enough to watch eternity @sarkeizen?all machines must break someday(angry neighbor,kids,pets).this doesnt mean they,re not useful right? B)did phillip appear to state it or did he state it @sarkeizen.i dont see him hammering that idea but lets chat about it anyway coz its interesting.how does a passive demon interfere with information theory?does information theory require erasure of information or not @sarkeizen.i can see some sort of information erasure when switching a quenco on and off i.e. one entropy state 'forgets' or 'overrides'the other when switched.an electrical entropy need overrides a temperature entropy need in that case only so long as there is electrical contact. C) I can use it-look: wikipedia acknowledges the existance of an oxygen concentration cell.wikipedia acknowledges it can exist under ambient conditions.wikipedia acknowledges that its potential arises due to differing exposure to oxygen.3 givens for an ambient pressure gaseous concentration cell.this sustains my statement about such cells by following rules about such cells.we conclude that wikipedia info sustains an cell that violates kelvins statement.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 29, 2013, 07:43:37 PM
A) see.i knew it was a trick question.who is eternal enough to watch eternity
Is 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.
Quote
B)did phillip appear to state it or did he state it
He 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.
Quote
I can use it-look
Sorry, 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.

I guess it's still fun to see you backed against the wall and afraid to answer my questions.  Keep it up.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 29, 2013, 09:32:16 PM
A)you didnt answer my question with a yes or no so why should i answer your question with a yes or no @sarkeizen.answer my question first then i,l answer your question.do you think it is rational for a science teacher to ask a student to build a wikipedia-based oxygen concentration cell.yes or no. B)well i can tell you straight,an osmosis membrane distinguishes molecules wether a kelvin violation or not.how does that affect your theory? C) i can use the nernst equation to prove a kelvin violation.you would think that that involves all electrochemisty textbooks.and,i can use wikipedia to build a kelvin violation.you would think that its perhaps you up against a wall?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 29, 2013, 11:41:04 PM
A)you didnt answer my question with a yes or no so why should i answer your question with a yes or no
Because 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.
Quote
an osmosis membrane distinguishes molecules
Please 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.
Quote
C) i can use
Nothing.  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.
Quote
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.

Me?  I have no fear of you answering that question.  I'm rather certain you're wrong or mistaken but I'm happy to embrace the truth.  However you simply evade and evade and evade (and lie).  So I doubt I have anything to worry about in either case.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 30, 2013, 12:32:22 AM
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).B)oh so it has to be a kelvin-busting demon to screw up your theory? You couldve just said so.C)ive never seen 1 textbook giving an example of a bismuth metal concentration cell.does that mean it doesnt exist?dont be silly man,the nernst equation covers wikipedia-type O2 concentration cells too ya know,therefore the nernst equation can predict a wikipedia-type O2 cell using any textbook namsayn.a wikipedia-type O2 cell is a perpetual motion device of the 2nd kind.see the link?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 30, 2013, 02:26:49 AM
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?
Quote
B)oh so it has to be a kelvin-busting demon to screw up your theory? You couldve just said so
I'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.
Quote
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.
 
Again some moron who has a name remarkably similar to yours said:
Quote
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
Quote
using any textbook
Then 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 30, 2013, 03:08:39 PM
A)busy doing that B)well if you actualy build and watch the OXYGEN CONCENTRATION CELL MENTIONED IN WIKIPEDIA in action you might wana change your theory @sarkeizen. C)written: E= RT/nF ln a1/a2 (in all electrochemistry textbooks) therefore predicted E= RT/nF ln a(O2)1(1atm)/a(O2)2(1atm) by all electrochemistry textbooks therefore at equilibrium E= 0 and a(O2)1 = a(O2)2 and Patm(O2)1 > Patm(O2)2 exactly proportional to the original activity difference a.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 30, 2013, 04:16:35 PM
A)busy doing that
Can you tell me if you watched the device for an eternal period of time at the time of my question?
Quote
B)well if you actualy build and watch
You said..
Quote
no need to observe.i
So 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.
Quote
by all electrochemistry textbooks
Then 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 30, 2013, 10:09:17 PM
A)can you tell me why your being such an E.O.A? Give me a question of equivalent sense as the one i asked you and we,re on @sarkeizen.B)what happened to B?come back to B and face B @sarkeizen.you must change your theory C) written E= 0.059/2 log a1/a2 (by sienko & plane chemistry,principals and applications 3rd edition page 304,nernst equation) and therefore predicted E = 0.059/2 log a( 1/2 O2)1 p1/a( 1/2 O2)2 p1(this is the formula for the wikipedia O2 conc.cell)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 31, 2013, 02:56:56 AM
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.
Quote
B)what happened to B?come back to B and face B @sarkeizen.you must change your theory
Explain, B sounded just like another one of your stupid dodges...so does anything you type...because until today that's all you have done.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 31, 2013, 08:53:43 AM
A) i had to dodge it.all my textbooks are so overused that they,re lying around in tatters.only found the cover page with authors now.still want that koffee? :-). B)B was your thing @sarkeizen.you said that a kelvin violation would affect your theory and since you now know how to build one and which book to use to help you build one tell us how its going to affect it.cmon,dont leave us in suspense. C)you only made it harder for yourself ya'know.now you have to run around looking for sienko&plane 3rd edition when you couldve pulled any electrochemistry,physical chemistry,or analytical chemistry textbook from the shelf instead,like i kept trying to tell you all along man.silly-silly @sarkeizen.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 31, 2013, 03:39:26 PM
A) i had to dodge it.
Please answer the question.  Did you observe the device operating eternally at the time I asked the question?
Quote
you said that a kelvin violation would affect your theory
Not 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.
Quote
you only made it harder for yourself ya'know.now you have to run around looking for sienko&plane 3rd edition
Seriously?  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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on December 31, 2013, 06:30:20 PM
A)yes B)whoooar! Are you saying that the class of cells discussed here fall more in line with information theory than the proposed quenco?talk to me @sarkeizen.i know you,ve been calculating a whole lotta shit under the desk.C)yeah but the phonecall costed you,and now you have to hope that either the delivery guy or the library guy didnt misplace that book or worse,puke over it.silly. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 31, 2013, 11:09:31 PM
A)yes
Are you saying you spent an eternal amount of time observing the device prior to me posing the question?
Quote
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.
Quote
yeah but the phonecall costed you
No.  Again the person who made this hard is simply and entirely you asshole.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 01, 2014, 12:49:39 AM
A)yeah B)wtf man.just when i thought this shit was about to get intresting you trip me up again.i dont give a fuck what info theory says,thank god for reproducability thats all im saying.C)bullshit.im glad i stalled your ass coz now i,l just refer you and everyone else to the WIKIPEDIA OXYGEN CONCENTRATION CELL namsayn.WIKIPEDIA O2 CELL @sarkeizen.i dare you to build and test one,even theoretically.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 01, 2014, 01:48:38 AM
A)yeah
So you're lying.  Again.
Quote
wtf man.just when i thought this shit was about to get intresting
You have made pretty sure that won't happen.
Quote
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.
Quote
bullshit.im glad i stalled your ass
So in other words you just admitted that you're an EOA.  Congratulations, I guess?
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 01, 2014, 07:50:31 AM
@sarkeizen..A)nope 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-cell and a kelvin-bust will be compatible with it in some way.work it out man.i got a feeling they are.C) oh k mr smartass in other words youre saying that its stupid to build a wikipedia-cell? Lay that one by me again man?????rotfl!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 02, 2014, 09:23:37 AM
@sarkeizen..A)nope
Except that you just stated you spent an eternal amount of time in a finite period.  That is a lie.  sorry.
Quote
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-cell
What 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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 02, 2014, 01:34:27 PM
A)nope.a finite period can be subdivided into eternal subdivisions of time thus i was actualy watching it eternaly @sarkeizen.i.e. i did not lie.B)well i think that the normal rules of concentration cells should apply to concentration cells @sarkeizen.Lest you wana change them to suit you.C) 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 anything.it is in fact you who now has to defend the wikipedia kelvin law application to the wikipedia battery in question,either by demonstration or by theory.dontcha think?after all you are their representative.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 02, 2014, 03:26:36 PM
A)nope.a finite period
I 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!
Quote
can be subdivided into eternal subdivisions of time
A "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.

It's interesting that in your effort to troll you couldn't even take the time to look up the *correct* way to state Zeno's paradox.  Moron.
Quote
well i think that the normal rules of concentration cells should apply to concentration cells
So 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".
Quote
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 anything
Without 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 02, 2014, 05:27:06 PM
A) so what @sarkeizen? Im going to look at it tomorrow again.whats the problem? B)no.the rules work the way they describe.C) except that countless other references beside wikipedia mention the same battery thus its not an error anymore @sarkeizen.interpretation? How much interpretation can you get from a name like 'oxygen concentration cell'?the name is so specific that a scientist can determine how it works just by looking at it man.since you wont believe me regardless it really boils down to my challenge @sarkeizen: can you prove to us that a wikipedia O2 conc. cell is non-eternal.can you flatten it for us please.we are challenging you @sarkeizen.we,the overunity.com crowd and audience.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 02, 2014, 07:21:57 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
except that countless other references beside wikipedia mention the same battery thus its not an error anymore
Which 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.

Quote
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.

Quote
since you wont believe me regardless
If 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.
Quote
it really boils down to my challenge
You 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.

Not to mention, that if you admit this is the ONLY way you can make your point.  Then you have LOST the argument.  You argued that I don't need to observe, I only need to look at the textbooks.  So that's what I'm doing.  As I said, I'm pretty sure you're wrong but I've got a textbook coming and I'm going to read it and then watch you flounder for another three months trying to argue your point.  Perhaps you haven't been keeping score but pretty much every time you've attempted to engage me in a logical argument you have lost.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 02, 2014, 10:39:57 PM
mr sarkeizen..are you aware that we have challenged you to a physical demonstration of kelvins law in a cell mentioned in wikipedia? Are you aware that we want to cut through the crap and see some evidence?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 02, 2014, 10:51:33 PM
@sarkeizen..are you aware that we
rofl...aren't we plural today...moron. :D :D :D :D
Quote
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.

You know if you want to have another different discussion...it might just be easier if you concede this point.  Considering your desperate change of subject I think we all know, that you know that you lost.

Just 'sayin.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 02, 2014, 11:13:51 PM
mr sarkeizen..thesis sir? Are you saying you will not be able to demonstrate kelvins law within the wikipedia battery in question?that you rather prefer to chat about it?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 02, 2014, 11:24:04 PM
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.
 
Were you lying then? Or have you changed your mind and you no longer believe that textbooks alone are sufficient to prove your point?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 02, 2014, 11:33:08 PM
mr sarkeizen..ok sir.you prefer to chat about it then.no problemo.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 03, 2014, 03:48:09 AM
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.

Perhaps you need to figure out what you're saying before you say it.  Moron.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 03, 2014, 07:51:04 PM
mr sarkeizen mr sarkeizen,please calm down sir..im saying you, have to demonstrate to us,the validity of your kelvin statement for your battery titled,'oxygen concentration cell'.your battery sir.you may do this theoreticaly if a demonstration is 'inconvenient' sir.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 03, 2014, 08:06:54 PM
mr sarkeizen mr sarkeizen,please calm down sir
Uh...right.  In what way wasn't I calm?
Quote
im saying you, have to demonstrate to us,the validity of your kelvin statement
Which kelvin statement and does that mean you have given up on your statement about textbooks necessitating eternal batteries?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 03, 2014, 10:49:18 PM
A) in a polygraph way. B) im talking about kelvins statement about the 2nd law thermodynamics @ sarkeizen(youre the defence lawyer for info theory right?more like the accused now right?) and no i havent given up my statement,just boosted it by your inability to demonstrate or theoreticaly prove(how hard can this be?) that a battery named by establishment papers obeys the said kelvin statement.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 03, 2014, 11:42:40 PM
A) in a polygraph way
Yawn...you're imagining things again troll-boy.
Quote
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?

Anyway since you SAID all I needed to do was read textbooks, my building anything has to be part of some *other* point (or is inessential for this point).  Right?  So we will leave your other point (or your inessential argument to this point) aside until you finish your first one.  Ok?  Great.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 04, 2014, 12:21:31 AM
@sarkeizen..why do we have to finish the first point first?youre still waiting for that book to arrive at the library so technicly and realisticly the first point is on hold until youve checked on it.thus we havent much option but to switch(roles actualy) to the 2nd point,which is in support of the 1st point anyway so technicly we,re still busy with the 1st point when switching(roles actualy) to the 2nd point anyway,,,troll-boy.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 04, 2014, 12:28:16 AM
why do we have to finish the first point first?
So you admit these are two different points?  Great. 
Quote
to the 2nd point,which is in support of the 1st point anyway so technicly we,re still busy with the 1st point
What?  Is it the same point or a different point?  Figure that out and get back to me.
 
If it's the same point, then it's unnecessary.  If it's a different point then it's irrelevant.  Right?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 04, 2014, 12:38:27 AM
@sarkeizen no theyre all one point,divided into two parts but i like to call the 2nd part 'point 2' silly.otherwise how would we get a distinction between one-half point and another one-half point duh...and 2 one-half points arent unnecesary because 2 halves make a whole duh.. Makes sense now?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 04, 2014, 01:52:26 AM
@sarkeizen no theyre all one point
So 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)?

If yes, then they are not the same point but it also undermines your point about textbooks.  Since they can say "You can build this" but you really can't.
If no, then the second point is unnecessary.

Right?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 04, 2014, 08:03:53 AM
@sarkeizen i like that thought.but since your waiting for your library book we have NO CHOICE but to create a 2-half points,both which de-necessitate the other half-point.in other words if you can prove to us that your battery doesnt work forever we wont need point 1.although point 1 wil always stil exist and be ready for us,after you get your library book to varify for us its validity.   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 04, 2014, 08:38:10 PM
which de-necessitate
In 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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 04, 2014, 08:57:49 PM
@sarkeizen..wrong.because the textbooks go hand in hand with wikipedias cell.all we want is for you to prove that the wikipedia cell can go permanently flat,thats all we want.here is the wikipedia cell in its simplest form,in off mode:
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 04, 2014, 10:33:28 PM
@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.

In which case, again according to you.  It's irrelevant to pursue the information theory question.

Thanks for admitting that.  I guess we can just wait. :-)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 04, 2014, 11:09:54 PM
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 (-:..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 05, 2014, 04:23:35 AM
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.

Let me know when you figure out which one you are saying...you can pretend there's a third option but I'll just crush you when you do that. :D :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 05, 2014, 09:11:21 AM
i knew you were going to say that which is why i setup my post like that to setup my next post like this:'if there is one hole in the kelvin bucket then all of kelvin spills on the floor'(profitis statement).quenco and other proposed perpetual motions may be very real if you cant show us how to kill that wikipedia battery @sarkeizen.the consequences of which may be truly enormous to the overunity.com crowd and far far beyond..perhaps spurring them on into a frenzy of research into other areas beside electrochemistry but with much more clarity this time.kill that wikipedia battery @sarkeizen before you start a revolt unintentionaly.do it at least in theory.at least in theory(something is better than nothing).
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 05, 2014, 04:16:20 PM
'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"?

Either you are arguing this or you are not.  If not, then of course I win that argument.  Since all I am arguing is that you can't support that statement strictly using textbooks and formal logic.

Take your time.  Let me know.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 05, 2014, 07:09:10 PM
well lets see what wikipedia has to say about our cell @sarkeizen since they collect info from textbooks for us and give references too...'this generation of electricity from AMBIENT thermal energy,WITHOUT a temperature gradient,is possible because the convergence of chemical concentrations in the 2 half-cells increases ENTROPY,and this increase more than compensates for the decrease when heat is converted into electrical energy'..source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_cell .this about sums it up for our everlasting cell mentioned further below in that same article titled'oxygen concentration cell' @sarkeizen,the very same cell that we challenge you to kill.you can see that it obeys thermodynamic entropy requirements,the electrochemical entropy requirement completely overwhelming the pressure and temperature entropy requirement,,when in electrical contact of course..what say you @sarkeizen?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 05, 2014, 08:44:04 PM
well lets
answer my question please...I get that you don't like losing but you should at least try to be fair.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 05, 2014, 10:19:08 PM
 question answered,with an answer @sarkeizen. The above electrochemical cell violates kelvin-plank statement but satisfies entropy requirements of the 2nd law.quite a juxtaposition to swallow for the mind.two seperate entropy states in one system.either the one is active in time(electrochemical) or the other active in time(pressure,diffusion).assymetrical.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 06, 2014, 03:07:44 PM
question answered
Not 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"?

Again, I'm sure you don't like losing but since you constantly demand answers to your stupid and vague questions.  You could at least answer one of my clear and concise ones. :D  Just for a change from your normal miasma of nonsense. :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 06, 2014, 08:24:03 PM
im going to tell you exactly what im doing @sarkeizen.im no longer arguing my point about textbooks supporting and predicting and mentioning a kelvin violator, im showing it.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on January 07, 2014, 12:01:28 AM
@profitis, well you seem to have won the longest argument in history, and despite your use of theory and text books your view is right that building it is certainly the proof that is needed. Good luck to you.


Similarly with sebby and quenco.


Having done the sebby experiment repeatedly within a small circle the time has come to go public, so I am offering a limited edition 10W sebby on my site. They will be made in Beijing (subject to discussions with the manufacturer).


www.quentron.com (http://www.quentron.com)


With 100 professional units out there the World can no longer deny the 2lot violation.


As soon as I can I will also start selling quenco, depending on the progress over the next few months re batch c.


Of course mass demonstrated 2lot violation by the sebby will no doubt ignite world wide interest in the quenco, and that will finally deliver the proper resources it deserves.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 07, 2014, 01:11:45 AM
im going to tell you exactly what im doing @sarkeizen.
Probably not.
Quote
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?

Quote from: stupidest man on earth
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.

I never really understand the moronic arrogance of people like Philip but that might be a good thing you know.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 07, 2014, 05:36:07 PM
definitely one of the longest arguments in history @phillip,beginning over 100years or so ago at the time when these laws were certified.certainly the first time in history that someone has pointed out a working perpetual motion device of the 2nd kind supported by wikipedia and ironicly thanks to sarkeizen for steering my attention there.i gues its you,me,sarkeizen,not to mention lumen who all played a role in the serendipity here,destined to culminate in the wikipedia paper,and from the wikipedia paper to hundred other papers on same subject.beautiful @phill,beautiful.wonder what the repercussions will be? Will wiki now 'correct' that paper? Will all the others? Lol!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 07, 2014, 06:00:57 PM
intending support?lol @sarkeizen show me one higher education science textbook that doesnt support the wikipedia cell,the cell that you cant and wont kill.whats with your obsession with eternity man quit being silly.show me an electrochemical cell that doesnt self-discharge one iota over ten years and youve already got a winner @sarkein,no other type electrochemical cell behaves this way(except other kelvin violators).show me a cell that gives energy from say ten percent corrosion and 90percent kelvin-bust that rusts completely dead in 17years and youve still got a winner economy.whaddaya complaining bowt, eternity man,pah!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 07, 2014, 07:42:09 PM
Quote from: The Book of Stupid
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 kill
So 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.
Quote
whats with your obsession with eternity man
You'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.

Now if you want to withdraw that argument.  Go ahead but as long as it's your claim, I'm going to force you to defend it.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 07, 2014, 08:57:17 PM
A)stupid? You mean like lord kelvin?wasnt he the guy who said something about heavier-than-air-machines being impossible? B)so are you going to answer my question first,CAN YOU KILL THE WIKIPEDIA BATTERY AND SHOW IT (in theory if you prefer).C)ok i lied @sarkeizen.it,l power your ipod for 80years(im saying this to hopefully chill you out).happy now?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 07, 2014, 09:38:18 PM
can you use textbooks to show how to kill the wikipedia battery @sarkeizen because i can use textbooks to show how not to kill it.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 07, 2014, 10:27:48 PM
,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!)

As I said.  "forever" , "eternal" was your point.  If you didn't mean it don't say it.

So something that runs for 80 years and then runs out of juice.  That isn't likely to be a 2LOT violation.  The oxford bell has been running for over 150 years and we know it will run out and we know it's not a 2LOT violation.

So I guess you give up then?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 07, 2014, 11:50:39 PM
maybe its because you like to hear me repeat myself over and over again?maybe thats your thing @sarkeizen.maybe thats why you get high on my posts.i mean,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?you know of any oxford bells that can power an ipod for 80years?please let me be the first to know,we,l be rich.give up?holy shit im beginning to think youre crazy dude,i just challenged you to use textbooks to show us how a textbook battery goes dead and you wont do it @sarkeizen,you wont because you cant.its you who,s being hammered here buddy,wakeup.i can use a textbook to show you how an oxford zinc-carbon goes flat anytime :-)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 08, 2014, 02:13:23 AM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
i just challenged you to use textbooks to show us how a textbook battery goes dead and you wont do it
Why 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?
Quote
@sarkeizen,you wont because you cant.its you who,s being hammered here buddy
It 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).
Quote
,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".
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 08, 2014, 06:42:15 AM
B)my argument was that textbooks support and predict a kelvin-buster.thats exactly what i showed.C) 3 years is all we need from the above said kelvin-buster.should it decide to go on for eternity then thats its own decision.its not up to you or me @sarkeizen.(although we,l make sure that it rusts after 3years in the panasonic labs).D)huh? E)huh!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 08, 2014, 03:01:53 PM
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.

Unless that's no longer your argument.  I mean you should just say that.  Which of course means you lost that argument.  Right? If you're willing to admit that then there's at least room to move on to something else but if you're just going to play the same game if I crush whatever your current argument is then.  Yawn.  Sorry, not interested.

You might think you have agreed that I won that round but it's hard to tell when a) You don't say things clearly and b) You start talking about your battery *deciding* to run forever, perhaps it's talking to you too?
Quote
C) 3 years is all we need from
3 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?
Quote
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.
Quote
D)huh? E)huh!
Your English is pretty bad, I get that.  How about formulating questions that aren't simply grunts?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on January 08, 2014, 03:07:14 PM
Hi All.


Please go to


www.quentron.com


for some interesting reading.


Regards
Phil
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Qwert on January 08, 2014, 04:11:30 PM
A collectible for $5000?  :o
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 08, 2014, 07:48:53 PM
my battery?no no mr sarkeizen.it was my battery.its your battery now.your battery.establo-wiki.establo-other papers,official.concretized.youre domain.your side of the line now bro.we want to interrogate you about your battery for a change because we feel like interrogating you about your battery for a change today @sarkeizen.is it eternal? If not can you show us how not?if you wont show us how not why not? Crucial questions.we demand answers. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 08, 2014, 07:55:59 PM
my battery?no no mr sarkeizen.it was my battery.its your battery now.
Nope.

You said you observed something.  You stated that a battery of some configuration would last eternally.  I simply mentioned that empirical observations can't support this.  You eventually appeared to agree.  Then you appeared to admit that you lied and it wouldn't last forever even in theory (although you seem to think that the battery can "decide" to last eternally or something).  So clearly the entire conversation (such as it is) is about something you observed and you are postulating.  Again I can show you quotes from your idiot self for all of this.

So that can't be "my battery" in any useful sense of the term as I'm not observing any of those things or postulating any of those things.  Anytime you actually want to start making progress on this discussion you can signal me by answering questions clearly and specifically. Until then you can continue being an enormous obstructionist asshole.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 08, 2014, 08:09:28 PM
in other words you want to interrogate me for saying your battery lasts eternaly.why would you want to interrogate someone who said your battery is eternal when you believe that your battery is uneternal? Surely you,d laugh and say 'yeah right',right? Why arent you saying yeah right and laughing @sarkeizen?why are you interrogating the interrogater?something to hide?shy?still cant find a scientist friend to confirm if im incorrect?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 08, 2014, 08:42:55 PM
in other words you want to interrogate me for saying your battery lasts eternaly
Nope.  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".

So what next?

Will you continue to *imagine* that I've said something that I haven't.

...or just fall back and demand I build something?
...or demand I answer some irrelevant question "yes or no" when it's clearly not collectively exhaustive?
...or pretend that you've done what I asked when you haven't?
...or keep avoiding the question?
.
Do debate tactics like yours work ever?  Because they seem to be nothing but fail right now.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 08, 2014, 08:46:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 08, 2014, 08:47:54 PM
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.

Such as your postulating:  "Textbooks necessitate the existence of and the ability to construct a battery which will run an ipod-like device eternally"
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 08, 2014, 09:17:05 PM
official textbook side of the line @sarkeizen.you must defend the oxygen concentration cell from being branded a perpetual motion device,fast.period.(btw,why do you avoid using the words oxygen concentration cell?hell you,ve never said those words once before,anybody else notice this?step into my domain for once @sarkeizen,electrochemistry)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 08, 2014, 10:35:50 PM
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?

Either support your statement or say you can't/won't.  In which case I'd entertain the idea of talking about something else.
Quote
step into my domain for once
"stupid" isn't really a domain I'm interested in knowing more about.
Quote
avoid using the words oxygen concentration cell
I'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.

Until you can actually respond non-stupidly (intelligently is probably a stretch) then there will just be another hundred posts of this.  Your call.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on January 09, 2014, 01:10:22 AM
A collectible for $5000?  :o


Hi Qwert,



What price would you sell the first proved 2nd law violators for?


They come in a presentation box with a test certificate and a certificate certifying they are a limited edition.


My guess is that they will have a resale price considerably higher.


So why is not $5,000 reasonable?


After all they are 10W, not 10uW, so if the sebby experiment costs $10 to produce 10uW then the price of a 10W would be $10,000,000 if you had to make it with off the shelf vacuum tubes. :D


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.


Regards
Phil
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on January 09, 2014, 02:27:29 AM
@PJH: I  think the price is absolutely OK. It's a once in a lifetime chance. A little advertising in the relevant publications(WND, DailyPaul, Infowars) could certainly help. Maybe an ad like this:
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 09, 2014, 04:20:46 AM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on January 09, 2014, 05:10:10 AM
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.







Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 09, 2014, 06:19:16 AM
sarkeizen wont accept your bet @phillip.he wont even accept my challenge about the wikipedia cell.im going to bet him too that he wont EVER bring a scientist friend onboard to explain to us how to kill that wikipedia cell.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 09, 2014, 12:45:58 PM
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?

Thanks for pointing that place out. It really cemented my skepticism of you and your claims and let me see the full cycle of "Just wait until..." nonsense.

So now that you are talking to me, what is your timeline for selling 100 crazymachines?
sarkeizen wont accept your bet
Actually 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.
Quote
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.

I've been pretty straight-forward.  You made a series of pretty strong statements about batteries which last eternally.  I took issue with them not just because I think they are wrong but because it appeared they could be reasonably settled.  If most or all textbooks clearly said: "Hey here's how to make a battery that will run eternally" then it would be easy to point out one I could find.  Even if most or all textbooks only made such statements from which it could be deduced that eternal batteries could be made.  Again this would be easy for you to quote a text and then supply a formal argument. 

Anything less would mean that you are either wrong about the outcome or wrong about the strength with which you asserted it and would likely expose your assumptions and possibly your error.  All good things.

Instead what has happened?  You have lied repeatedly.  You have spent months alternating between avoiding supporting your point and attempting to distract away from your point by trying to get me involved in discussions which are either monumentally stupid or poorly defined.

Sorry, not interested.  Especially since I think I just won an argument with you and you can't be honest and admit it.

So now you're on distraction tactic #523.  Make up a position which you think is stronger and then try to bully me into arguing it.  Again I have to ask you.  Do these tactics of yours ever work?  If not, perhaps you could ask your home room teacher to direct you to some place where you can learn better ones.  If so, I suggest that all those people who say "You're a good arguer" are stupid.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 09, 2014, 05:42:49 PM
geez calm down @sarkeizen.sorry for being a bully.i only asked you to bring a scientist on to explain how a textbook cell runs owta juice.i didnt ask you to find the lost ark for me man,yeoowwch..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 09, 2014, 05:50:36 PM
geez calm down @sarkeizen
You keep thinking you're exciting.  You are continually incorrect.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 09, 2014, 05:59:16 PM
i am? Where in the textbook am i 'incorrect' @sarkeizen.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 09, 2014, 06:05:57 PM
i am?
yes.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 09, 2014, 06:17:42 PM
its incorrect to ask for evidence of the kelvin statement in a textbook cell? Even on paper?@sarkeizen?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 09, 2014, 06:20:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 09, 2014, 06:30:36 PM
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 @sarkeizen
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 09, 2014, 06:42:21 PM
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 @sarkeizen
You 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.

As far as I see you've already admitted that this other point (whatever it is) is either irrelevant, weaker than your textbook or invalidates your textbook point.  Not to mention that it appears to be an argument from ignorance. :D :D :D

Come back when you're not being stupid.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 09, 2014, 07:20:55 PM
lol! @englishmaster- sarkeizen.this discussion has become a joke man.im asking you to prevent a textbook device from being branded perpetual motion and youre asking me to unprevent it from being branded perpetual motion.dont you think that the righteous deed is now on you to defend kelvins statement?for the sake of showing me up as incorrect (as you claim)at least?then you can show me up as the liar you claim me to be.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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 09, 2014, 07:52:18 PM
lol! @englishmaster- sarkeizen.this discussion has become a joke man.
Yes, you made it a joke by being an EOA.
Quote
im asking you to prevent a textbook device from being branded perpetual motion
Sorry.  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.
Quote
and youre asking me to unprevent it from being branded perpetual motion
No 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.
Quote
then you can show me up as the liar you claim me to be
Dude.  You have admitted to being a liar, twice.  I don't think I need to do any more work here.
Quote
.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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 09, 2014, 08:49:22 PM
you really truly are sillier than i thought you were @sarkeizen.power,my friend,in science,lies in the ability to demonstrate something,regardless of what any book says.thats why i keep pushing you with my demonstrate rhetoric i.e. to pivot my point ruthlessly to the public,who are the ones which count here at the end of the day.in other words you can use wikipedia to tell you how to build a magical unicorn if your smart enough,let alone an self-repeating battery,and nobody would give a dam,especially you.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 09, 2014, 09:34:05 PM
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.

You said that textbooks necessitate batteries that run eternally.  However this is not a thing which can be demonstrated purely empirically.  While there is no set of observations (outside of textbooks) which can be guaranteed to be in textbooks.  More importantly there is no set of observations which is sufficient to demonstrate something occurs for eternity.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 10, 2014, 12:35:58 AM
nah.demonstration is numero uno @sarkeizen.for science that is repeatable by anyone,not just a select few,demos are all powerful.imagine if andrea rossi,s demo was so simple that anyone could repeat.the effect wouldve been monstrous instead of paltry(officialy paltry).anyway,im not here to change science textbooks but just to set the record straight about the karpen device and tell it like it is,an oxygen concentration cell.your harping on what i said about eternity is stupid,until you can prove that you cant observe something eternal,right now in the present moment,your complaint is null and void.many people have seen god @sarkeizen.you wana tell me thats not eternal? Prove it.many have seen the sun,prove that thats not eternal.what the public believes is relevant.half believe in santa claus,because they see santa claus,tv,books,malls etc..they must now see you,unable to uphold kelvin in wikipedia.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 10, 2014, 01:48:24 AM
demonstration is numero uno @sarkeizen.for science that is repeatable
I 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.

Repeatability is important but only insofar as it adds information to a system. You can repeat something as much as you want.  If it doesn't falsify anything then no knowledge is added.  Conversely something may not be repeatable or difficult to repeat and it can still be evidence, it can still add information.
Quote
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.
Quote
imagine if andrea rossi,s demo was so simple that anyone could repeat.the effect wouldve been monstrous instead of paltry
So 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.

When what moves people to do something or believe something diverges from the information in or added to the system all we are left with is a metric of how stupid people are.

Quote
just to set the record straight about the karpen device and tell it like it is
Nope.  You are here to do almost entirely the opposite.  To avoid clear thinking and embrace moronic stupidity.
Quote
,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.
Quote
until you can prove that you cant observe something eternal,right now in the present
Wrong 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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 10, 2014, 02:11:08 PM
A) no need to add info as it supports given info.you have to show why kelvin statement is needed to satisfy entropy requirements here with the given info and demo.as wikipedia said,an entropy requirement can overwhelm a temperature requirement.im going to stick to that statement and use it and abuse it at my free disposal until you can show otherwise.so basicly youre screwed in theory too never mind demos.in fact,you have to prove that kelvin statement about temperature is needed in any ambient pressure gas concentration cell. B)see above C)see above D)nope E)you dont need to see karpen,s effort.you can replicate it,my point all along.and you can use wikipedia statement on that one too:entropy requirements overwhelm temperature requirements,no need for kelvin again.unless you can show it in theory? F)my statement was that textbooks predict and support something eternal.whats that got to do with observing it?you need to observe the textbook thats all.G)see above.H)yes but still,if half the population of scientists see that your unable to defend kelvin then it might or might not be entertaining.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 10, 2014, 03:47:14 PM
A) no need to add info as it supports given info
You 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
Quote
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.

By admitting you will "abuse" something you are admitting you are unethical.  Thanks for discrediting yourself. :D :D :D 
Quote
B)see above
You 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.
Quote
D)nope
Actually 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.
Quote
you have to prove
Nothing.  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
Quote
E)you dont need to see karpen,s effort.you can replicate it
*ROFL* How do you replicate something that hasn't been observed?

Quote
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

Quote
you need to observe the textbook thats all
I 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on January 11, 2014, 05:13:49 AM
Hi All,


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.


His public help is most appreciated as to date others who have successfully tested have not been prepared to be put under the spotlight for fear of repercussions and of being attacked by ranting skeptics like.......... we all know who, on this thread at least. lol


Regards
Phil
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 11, 2014, 05:44:41 AM
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?

Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 11, 2014, 07:13:00 AM
well then you have a loooot of explaining to do @sarkeizen.the cell diagrammed below has truly massive power for a concentration cell.around 1volt and 10-30milliamps/cm2.a few of these stacked in series will power your ipod eternaly,or until your ipod breaks.professor jones may build this one if he chooses.blackened or sponge palladium is the anode.blackened or sponge silver the cathode.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 11, 2014, 07:23:25 AM
.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.

This would be the place in an argument where I might actually get interested.  However you haven't yet shown any capacity at making a logical argument. In fact so far you are the worst thinker I've met on OU.  Which includes lumen...so what I expect is more dodges and evasions.

I just realized that SEJ already believes in OU and has his own OU device out for years.  Doesn't that kind of make it unlikely that he's going to tell Philip he's crazy?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 11, 2014, 07:43:52 AM
at those power levels its really no longer important @sarkeizen.either that energy is coming from a kelvin bust or an unknown.i,l stick with kelvin bust until somebody can point out the unknown.or until somebody can show that kelvin statement is required for its functioning on paper.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 11, 2014, 07:46:01 AM
at those power levels
The one's you imagined?...again formal logical argument stemming from a textbook cite which results in necessitating eternal operation or you've lost.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 11, 2014, 08:14:34 AM
imagined? Try it yourself :-). potent power.i doubt you will listen to logical arguments.you didnt even listen to wikipedias logic: cycle 1(on):electrochemical entropy overwhelming pressure,temperature entropy.cycle 2)(off)pressure,temperature entropy are all thats left.where does kelvin statement fit in here?2 totaly seperate entropy requirements.one system.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 11, 2014, 04:46:17 PM
imagined? Try it yourself :-)
I can't observe something lasting eternally. So there no experiment to try.
Quote
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

But lets examine the actual evidence...what was the last thing I asked for?...A textbook cite.  You spent months and months desperately trying to avoid doing that thing.  The second you did, I stopped making that the focus of my posts.  So you have no reason to doubt whatsoever.

If you have offered something you *think* is a formal argument.  Then the problem is likely that you are simply incorrect.   It's not like you've shown much ability to determine the difference between logic and it's opposite.   i.e. You can't see how no number of purely empirical observations can demonstrate something operating eternally.

In all this I wonder: "Why all the rush?" is your cite fake?  I guess I'll know when the textbook comes in.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 11, 2014, 05:36:30 PM
youre screwed.the above cell is a gas concentration cell of the wikipedia type thus we,l explain it in gas concentration cell language for you: cycle 1)electrochemical entropy requirement overwhelms temperature/pressure entropy requirement.cycle 2)temperature/pressure entropy requirement takes over.again i ask you,where does kelvin statement fit here in this gas concentration cell cycle..@sarkeizen
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 12, 2014, 12:21:21 AM
youre screwed.
Are you hitting on me?
Quote
the above cell is a gas concentration cell of the wikipedia type thus
You 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.

Anything else means the textbooks DON'T necessitate it.  In which case you lose.
Your not providing the only information which will make your point means that you can not substantiate your point.  In which case I win.

Take your time, keep trying to squirm out of the trap.  It won't change.   Now if you want you can always just say: "Hey I want to *change* my hypothesis" and lose that argument and then  argue one that you think is more important or stronger or better.  Whatever but I'm not going to bother starting a new conversation with someone who can't admit they are wrong.

At some point in life you need to learn this.  Might as well be now.

Also considering your change of subject.  I'm starting to think that when I get this textbook and turn to the indicated page I won't see the quote.  Pretty sad if you have to just keep lying about things.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 12, 2014, 01:00:19 AM
@sarkeizen..A)no im hitting you  B)my argument is completely formal and totaly logic.textbooks necessitate the existence of the wikipedia oxygen concentration cell..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 12, 2014, 02:29:10 AM
@sarkeizen..A)no im hitting you
Well it feels like you're tickling so you can understand my confusion.
Quote

B)my argument is completely formal and totaly logic.
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 12, 2014, 06:58:39 AM
@sarkeizen:A)well i knew you must be taking drugs because B)my argument is totaly logical and formal: textbooks abso-f*****g-lutely necessitate the wikipedia type gas concentration cell..please point out where it is illogical and informal.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 13, 2014, 01:27:01 AM
)my argument is totaly logical and formal
Please explain how what you are presenting is a formal logical argument.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 13, 2014, 06:29:11 AM
answer for sarkeizen:first of all let let me be absolutely clear about what im arguing.textbooks. necessitate.the.existence.of.wikipedia-type 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. Please point out where you are lost here..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Marsing on January 13, 2014, 10:24:22 AM

@profitis
please use more space between sentences or whatever  for easy reading.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 13, 2014, 10:49:42 AM
sure @marsing.send 50bux and i,l cater to that need 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Marsing on January 13, 2014, 10:56:34 AM

you should have received 1000bux,
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 13, 2014, 11:28:39 AM
if i used that much space then what are you complaining about @marsing
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 13, 2014, 04:32:02 PM
answer for sarkeizen:first of all let let me be absolutely clear about what im arguing.textbooks. necessitate.the.existence.of.wikipedia-type
Sounds 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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 13, 2014, 07:48:10 PM
my answer to sarkeizen: i,l cut to the chase so that its easier for you to understand: the battery mentioned in wikipedia under the name 'oxygen concentration cell' and any battery related to it does not require kelvin statement to function.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 13, 2014, 08:00:40 PM
,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. 

Your original argument was a device that would power a iPod eternally.  Is this what you are talking about now?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 13, 2014, 08:43:34 PM
my answer to sarkeizen: the wikipedia oxygen concentration cell and any related gas concentration cell ONLY requires passage of gas from one electrode to the other for equilibration:cyle 1(on): compression of gas for electrochemical entropy requirement at expense of temperature entropy requirement.cycle 2(off):decompression of gas with temperature entropy requirement.thus we conclude kelvin statement not applicable to this 100percent reversable gas compression/decompression cycle at the expense of heat from a single thermal reservoir.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 14, 2014, 06:19:24 AM
my answer to sarkeizen: the wikipedia oxygen concentration cell and any related gas concentration cell ONLY requires...blah...blah...blah
Will it run an ipod eternally?  Why do you keep avoiding this rather obvious and important question?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 14, 2014, 07:55:50 AM
my answer to sarkeizen: the WIKIPEDIA 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 14, 2014, 02:15:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 14, 2014, 04:31:06 PM
my answer to sarkeizen: affirmative
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 14, 2014, 06:42:42 PM
my answer to sarkeizen: affirmative
So why did you spend all that time being stupid about this?

If the original criteria was correct.  Why didn't you just agree with it instead of being an obstructionist asshole?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 14, 2014, 07:26:54 PM
my answer to sarkeizen: i dont know why.please forgive me.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 14, 2014, 09:10:55 PM
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".
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 15, 2014, 12:42:04 AM
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.perpetualy
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 15, 2014, 01:54:00 AM
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.perpetualy
Line breaks please. Not even going to bother reading if you don't take this seriously troll-boy.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on January 15, 2014, 03:28:41 AM
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/
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 15, 2014, 04:06:51 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Marsing on January 15, 2014, 05:41:57 AM
if i used that much space then what are you complaining about @marsing

nothing, i need 9950bux back + 100% delay Fee
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 15, 2014, 02:39:22 PM
maybe a diagram of the wikipedia-type gaseous cell equilibration will be easier for our audience and you to understand @sarkeizen.the cell before equilibrium stands with equal gas pressure and different gas activity across electrodes.after equilibration theres a gas pressure differential and equal gas activity across electrodes.the gas tap can then be opened to repeat the cycle.we do without the tap for practical purposes:
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 15, 2014, 03:32:05 PM
maybe a diagram
Not 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.
Quote
of the wikipedia-type
Sorry, don't know what that is.

Anyway if you can't come up with a formal argument by the time I receive the textbook and find out that you lied about your cite.  Then I'm not going to bother anymore.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 15, 2014, 08:21:29 PM
hey thats not fair @sarkeizen.everytime im nice and give you something from the textbooks you set the goalposts higher.its not fair man i dont think you really forgave me a minute ago.im gona tell on you man coz you not playin by rules of overunity.com or the rules of honour.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 16, 2014, 01:00:58 AM
hey thats not fair @sarkeizen.everytime im nice
Name once.
Quote
and give you something from the textbooks
To 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.

My request for you to provide a formal argument isn't raising the bar. It is both what you were asked for and you agreed to.  If you don't want to support your point.  It's no concern of mine, you will just lose the argument.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 16, 2014, 03:28:20 PM
@sarkeizen..all concentration cells related to and including the wikipedia oxygen concentration cell spontaneously compress gases at expense of ambient heat.how much more of a bridge from establishment to overunity could a rational individual want? Karpen,s battery is related to wikipedia,s battery @sarkeizen.no fundamental difference.i challenge you to bring on a scientist to tell us how to kill the wikipedia establishment cell and settle this once and for all.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 16, 2014, 05:22:55 PM
the wikipedia oxygen concentration cell
Sorry.  No idea what this is.  Please define without using the word "wikipedia" or referencing wikipeda, or drawing pictures. :D
Quote
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
Quote
 
 Karpen,s battery is related
Which hardly anybody has examined.  So again, you can not make this statement with any useful degree of accuracy. :D
Quote
to wikipedia,s battery
Sorry, no idea what this is. :D
Quote
i challenge you to
Yawn.  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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 16, 2014, 06:19:09 PM
A)google it to find out what it is and no i dont want to define it without using the word wikipedia. B)textbooks necessitate batteries of the wikipedia-type,which can do just that. C)we have the blueprint.we have replicated it.same problem, we cant kill it.or even semi-kill it.D)check A.E) check B and please explain why its stupid to bring a scientist on to support kelvin statement in the wikipedia battery.. @sarkeizen :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 16, 2014, 10:31:02 PM
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?
Quote
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
Quote
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).
Quote
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 17, 2014, 12:14:06 AM
A)nope.B)you dont think textbooks support wikipedia? C)yup we can.3-D is best.D)no im saying your answer is somewhere between mad and criminaly insane.we demand a scientist,NOW @sarkeizen..before i explode over just this issue.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 17, 2014, 04:44:17 PM
A)nope
Sure does, my argument was that you can't support your position...and you're refusing to support it.  You lose.
Quote
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. 
Quote
C)yup we can
Sadly, no.
Quote
D)no im saying your answer is somewhere between mad and criminaly insane
A 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.
Quote
.we demand a scientist,NOW
*ROFL*
Quote
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 17, 2014, 07:57:49 PM
A)nope.i win. B)nope. textbooks support wikipedia which supports eternal batteries. C)nope D)nope. WE THE AUDIENCE DEMAND THAT YOU PROVIDE A SCIENTIST TO UPHOLD KELVIN STATEMENT IN THE WIKIPEDIA BATTERY.you want to lose respect in the audience?nows your chance to save yourself.E)im dead serious. F)WE THE AUDIENCE DEMAND THAT YOU PROVIDE A SCIENTIST TO UPHOLD KELVIN STATEMENT IN THE WIKIPEDIA BATTERY.. @sarkeizen.or you rapidly lose respect and make people start to realy pay attention here at this thread.(you must remember that one of my diagrammed wikipedia-type batteries is high-powered enough to power an ipod eternaly in a size compatible with ipods.people want to know wtf is going on now,they want answers)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 17, 2014, 10:13:47 PM
A)nope.i win.
Hard to believe.  You are refusing to support your point but don't let me stop you from being stupid.
Quote
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
Quote
C)nope
Sadly, logic says you're wrong.  Again if you want to be stupid, be my quest.  :D
Quote
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

Or should I assume that your constant avoidance of the question means you actually do understand how stupid you are being? :D
Quote
people want to know wtf is going on now,they want answers
Something 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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 18, 2014, 01:47:28 AM
A)my point IS the wikipedia battery and i am supporting it by asking you to un-support it which you obviously cannot do.B) if it,s imaginery why can you not describe kelvins role in it,yet i can?this is your way to restore the public,s confidence in you? C)sadly this is limited to your own logic. D)dont insult the public @sarkeizen.they just want you to make provision to uphold an important statement in physics for certain wikipedia phenomena.E)yeah but you forgot to mention my dirty habit of winning arguments by getting encyclopedias involved,by DEMANDING THAT YOU UPHOLD KELVIN,S LAW IN THAT WIKIPEDIA BATTERY @sarkeizen.cmon,crush me and my statement,the one about ipods.should be a breeze :-)       
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: markdansie on January 18, 2014, 02:50:49 AM
I drop in to check this thread sometimes, any progress other than a lot of rhetoric musings?
Kind Regards
Mark
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on January 18, 2014, 03:12:39 AM
I drop in to check this thread sometimes, any progress other than a lot of rhetoric musings?
Kind Regards
Mark


PJH is very angry because nobody wants to buy a 'Sebby' for $5000. He has deleted his website again. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on January 18, 2014, 03:36:57 AM

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on January 18, 2014, 04:07:22 AM
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.


But the latest deletion looks a bit like altruistic self-punishment. The "Closed due to lack of public interest" message can only be targeted at a very small audience, including himself, due to lack of public interest. Indiegogo is probably a good idea, but PJHs marketing expertise could be a problem. Maybe he should consult a skeptical person to make sure his proposal sounds serious and rational.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on January 18, 2014, 06:28:05 AM
Orbut, I'm sure that there are people out there at least in some colleges who would give his ideas a fair shake.  There is a professor in San Diego who writes a lot about 2nd Law issues.  He would be a likely person to look at PJH's ideas.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 18, 2014, 09:55:19 PM
A)my point IS the wikipedia battery
Well 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.

...and your new point is something you won't define, even though I've asked several times.

You're really trying hard not to look at your own ideas skeptically.

By the by I think I predicted that Philip's current ploy would be a flop.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 19, 2014, 10:09:03 PM
my old point proves my new point which is that you cannot tell us or even provide someone to tell us or even quote someone to tell us how that wikipedia battery abides by kelvin statement @sarkeizen.theres no need for me to look at my own ideas skeptically anymore because now im looking at YOUR DEVICE skeptically bro.this thread will now hang on this note,the audience baffled,even scientists baffled,by your shocking inability to simply show us how kelvin statement fits in with the encyclopedia device.whats going on @sarkeizen?your going to start a revolution unintentionaly brother.better do something fast...(-:
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 20, 2014, 03:22:36 AM
my old point proves my new point
Your old point is unproven...you have provided one cite and no formal logical argument.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 20, 2014, 08:48:07 AM
my new point is proven: you have provided no cite and no argument whatsoever,nevermind logical.@sarkeizen.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 20, 2014, 03:53:16 PM
my new point is proven:
No, not really.

So can I take your post here as an admission that you don't know how stupid your request is?  Again, a simple "yes" and I'll go through and mow it down.   If you're afraid please continue evading the question.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 20, 2014, 08:15:14 PM
its not a request @sarkeizen.its a demand.a demand petitioned by me and the entire overunity community.a demand that you uphold a very important statement in physics,a statement made by lord kelvin over 100years ago.you have to show us how it applies to the wikipedia battery.you have to show us where it fits in with the wikipedia battery and how it kills the wikipedia battery.anything less than this is unacceptable and unscientific.if you dont do this we are forced to declare the foundation of your entire arguments in this thread null and void. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 20, 2014, 09:01:34 PM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 20, 2014, 09:37:50 PM
its not an admission either @sarkeizen.its a demand.a demand that you show us how kelvin statement gets into and destroys the wikipedia battery.we want to know @sarkeizen.we are going to start stomping our feet now...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 21, 2014, 12:22:18 AM
its not an admission either @sarkeizen.
So you *do* know how stupid your demand is?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 21, 2014, 01:06:02 AM
stomp,stomp,stomp...@sarkeizen..stomp..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 21, 2014, 01:44:08 AM
stomp,stomp,stomp...@sarkeizen..stomp..
Is that "Yes, I profitis know how stupid my demand is?"
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 21, 2014, 08:07:12 AM
no its the sound of the entire overunity and scientific community worldwide stomping their feet with growing impatience @sarkeizen...they want an answer,they want you to explain kelvin statement role in not only the wikipedia battery but in my hydrogen battery too! Their list of demands are growing now in what could be the most important thread in the history of this website,fuelled by YOUR inability to answer!  Stomp!,stomp!,stomp!...(getting louder now)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 21, 2014, 10:29:46 AM
cmon @sarkeizen,where are you.where are you.where are you.the whole scientific and overunity community are waiting your explanation..stomp! Stomp! STOMP!....
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 21, 2014, 02:01:01 PM
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.

Anyway, so who is this really?  You're starting to sound whiny like Bruce_TPU.  The idea that you might be Philip just talking to himself is also possible...and amusing.   I mean clearly you are going out of your way to wear a (a particularly stupid) fake mustache.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 21, 2014, 04:13:13 PM
whooooaaar!! in other words you cant show me where im wrong by pointing out how kelvin statement is supposed to do its thing here @sarkeizen??? Here with my hydrogen battery and here with wikipedia battery?? You want to argue without knowing your own shit first?? (no im not any of those guys,phillip is australian im south african,bruce who?no mustache here)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 21, 2014, 04:42:59 PM
in other words you cant show me where im wrong
Not until you answer my questions.  This would be true of any thesis, by anyone anywhere.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 21, 2014, 05:23:48 PM
i,l answer questions directly pertaining to the  subject at hand,ie..the workings of the wikipedia device.anything else is going off-tangent,e.g.arguing about arguments and the like..ask me questions about the wikipedia battery ok @sarkeizen.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 21, 2014, 06:09:56 PM
l answer questions directly pertaining to the  subject at hand
Almost never.  :D :D :D This can be proved with quote after quote after quote after quote.  You are nearly useless at this. :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 21, 2014, 06:26:05 PM
try me @sarkeizen.go on.ask me a question directly pertaining to the workings of the wikipedia device..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 21, 2014, 08:09:17 PM
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

Let me know when you are ready to answer relevant questions.  So far, you are not. :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 22, 2014, 12:37:50 AM
im ready @sarkeizen :-).hand me the first question pertaining to the wikipedia papers :-)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 22, 2014, 03:50:53 AM
question pertaining to the wikipedia papers
I 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.

Just let me know when you stop being an EOA.  Thanks.  :D :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 22, 2014, 09:01:56 AM
now you see,dear audience, why i tend to get a tad bit angry around the poster sarkeizen.he loves to steer conversations anywhere but ontopic. wikipedia oxygen concentration cell @sarkeizen:google it. Kindly ask me a question pertaining to it and it alone.it is used in that article to describe its effect upon iron corrosion.experience tells us it is impossible to permanently flatten or kill this electric cell. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 22, 2014, 02:03:12 PM
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.

While your original point is at least somewhat falsifiable (which is probably why you ran like crazy from arguing about it), your second point is a common logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance.  Which is why it's valueless.

Oh and I got the textbook, the page you mentioned doesn't have the cite you mentioned.  So....can you post a photo of the page with the page number from your textbook?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 22, 2014, 04:06:09 PM
its valueless to demand that you show how kelvins statement fits in with an electrochemical cell mentioned in wikipedia?ludicrous.heres a diagram of it below seperate from its context in the wikipedia article in which the two platinum electrodes are iron electrodes. My argument is that you cant show us how kelvin statement functions here to destroy it because it doesnt use kelvins statement to function.the temperature is 25celcius,the system standardized in one molar electrolyte.again i ask,kindly ask questions pertaining to this cell @sarkeizen. What is the first sentence in your book under section titled 'nernst equation'.i want to see if you really have that book.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 22, 2014, 04:29:32 PM
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.
: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 :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Quote
heres a stupid diagram of nothing relevant
Thanks.  I'll file it with the others.
Quote
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
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 22, 2014, 07:00:31 PM
its ignorant to ask you to show evidence of kelvin behaviour in a cell mentioned in wikipedia?preposterous. Its of zero value to ask you to show evidence of kelvin behaviour in a cell mentioned in wikipedia? Mad. I dont believe you @sarkeizen,please quote us the first sentence under section 'nernst equation' there in your book.i want to see if its same as mine.i suspect you are attempting to stall publicly answering your own questions. We demand that you ask questions pertaining to the mentioned wikipedia battery and related batteries and not deviate or distort from the pertinent subject here..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 22, 2014, 08:25:06 PM
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
It's irrelevant to the point at hand.  Again I can prove it but again you allow no questioning of your dogma.  So, at this time I can not help you.
: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
Quote
I dont believe you
Logic 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....
: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
Quote
please quote us the first sentence under section 'nernst equation' there in your book
I 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?
Quote
wikipedia battery
No 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
Quote
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.

:D :D :D You've been lying. :D :D :D

(again)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 22, 2014, 11:20:01 PM
@sarkeizen: WE THE GLOBAL SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY DEMAND THAT YOU THEORETICALY DEMONSTRATE THE ROLE OF KELVIN STATEMENT INSIDE THE WIKIPEDIA OXYGEN CONCENTRATION CELL. WE DEMAND IT NOW. 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,l put a photo up ok?deal?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 23, 2014, 06:23:35 PM
@sarkeizen: WE THE LAUGHABLY STUPID DEMAND
ROFL 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.
Quote
THE WIKIPEDIA OXYGEN CONCENTRATION CELL
Still no idea what this is.
Quote
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.
Quote
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
:D Oh please.  You can't put up a photo because you don't have the textbook, remember? :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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 23, 2014, 07:43:47 PM
A) it correlates directly with truth because you have to defend kelvin statement in order to attack kelvin-attackers.B)its the last cell diagrammed in this thread.everything under standard conditions except oxygen concentrations.C)does your book have a section titled 'nernst equation'.check in the index.D)oh yes i do but i dont believe you do @sarkeizen.post a photo of the page so that we can see that your telling the truth then.i,l post a photo after.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 23, 2014, 08:07:01 PM
A) it correlates directly with truth because you have to defend kelvin statement in order to attack kelvin-attacker
Nope.  That's an argument from ignorance.  Again, this is an age old logical fallacy. Look it up, if you doubt it.
Quote
B)its the last cell diagrammed in this thread.everything under standard conditions except oxygen concentrations.
Sorry, no idea what that diagram represents. 
Quote
C)does your book have a section titled 'nernst equation'.check in the index
I did.  Can't see one.
Quote
.D)oh yes i do but i dont believe you do
Think 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. 
Quote
@sarkeizen.post a photo of the page so that we can see that your telling the truth
You are the only one who lies here.  Not only that you do it entirely without conscience.
Quote
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
:D Shhhh....you don't have the textbook remember. :D
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: tim123 on January 23, 2014, 08:07:40 PM
Profitis and Sarkeizen,
  with all due respect, you guys have been bickering like an old married couple for months now. It's pretty tedious...

Some of us occasionally consider posting on the topic, but the endless tide of spam from you guys is a big put off.

Either get married, or get divorced, eh.

Regards, Tim
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 23, 2014, 08:26:53 PM
its sarkeizens fault @tim.he wont admit defeat,even now while he,s standing in a wikipedia corner.please,have your say.this debate couldve been put to rest ages ago if sarkeizen had just built any of the diagrammed cells and checked it out firsthand.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: tim123 on January 23, 2014, 08:43:29 PM
Hi Profitis,
  I understand the principle of the Quentron device, and the 'Sebby' unit. Although I'm not really qualified to express an opinion, I might be cajoled into doing so...

I think there's a great deal of misunderstanding in physics, and the world in general, and between you guys too... I think that Quantum Mechanics is *uncertain* ;)...

The bottom line is always experimental proof.

Is there, buried somewhere in the thread, something that can be built, which is testable? Other that the Quentron device itself which requires special processes...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 23, 2014, 09:06:16 PM
amazing @tim.ive been waiting the whole time for someone with common sense such as yourself to visit the thread and ask that important question.yes there is such a device buried in this thread.its on page 121 i think (for uncompressed data viewers),the diagram blueprint for a palladium/silver hydrogen concentration cell.it gives whopping power(for a concentration cell) permanently.about 1volt and 10-30 milli-amperes/cm2 electrode area at the top of its discharge curve.its quite expensive to make but it,s undeniably useful for powering small to medium electronic devices.you must make sure that it is absolutely sealed to prevent gas leakage and air entry.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 23, 2014, 10:17:32 PM
It looks like you could find everything you would need to build the cell on Ebay for about $100 or less.
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: tim123 on January 23, 2014, 10:35:02 PM
Hi Profits,
  Ok, the post is this one: http://www.overunity.com/12207/quentron-com/msg382512/#msg382512

It looks quite simple in principle. But expensive indeed.
Palladium foil - Thickness: 0.0015mm 25x25mm £ 420 - (http://www.shopmetals.co.uk/pd_fl_005.html)

 1) Is there a way of doing it with cheaper materials?
 2) What exactly is the principle of operation - where does the power come from? Is it a similar QM effect to Quentron?
 3) Has it ever been experimentally proven - if so by whom? Reference?

Thanks
Regards, Tim
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 23, 2014, 10:42:39 PM
Profitis and Sarkeizen,
  with all due respect, you guys have been bickering like an old married couple for months now. It's pretty tedious...
Seriously?  Compared to what?  Waiting years for Philip's nothing-machine?

Tell you what, as soon as Philip produces something non-stupid then I'll gladly let him have his soapbox back. Deal? :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 24, 2014, 01:16:16 AM
@tim 1)yes nickel may substitute palladium.the nickel must be tightly coated with nickel-black or at least grey spongy layer electrolyticaly before use(this is an art).2)yes its identical to quenco,s fundamental principal,except its electrochemical,not thermionic.quenco is an electron concentration cell and this is an electrochemical concentration cell.it obeys all the rules of concentration cells except kelvins rule.palladium/nickel concentrating thousands times more hydrogen on their surface than silver.3)ive done plenty experiments but i must warn you that its no easy feat getting hydrogen to saturate nickel/palladium,AND seal the device off free of air.if theres air trapped inside after sealing then implosion can result due to vaccuum forming.silver or gold wire must be used as your contact wires in the cell as they dont dissolve hydrogen and leak it. nickel gives somewhat less power than palladium.a few milliamps/cm2,still good enough for some practical purposes,especially in series.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on January 24, 2014, 02:59:49 AM
sotheonlythingthatpreventsusfromusingfreeenergyisprofitisawkwardpunctuationschemeandhisrefusaltoprovidethecitationshepromisedbutotherwiseitsadonedeal.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 24, 2014, 04:19:57 AM
The first sentence on page 304 is "In the alkaline version, as shown in Fig. 11.12b NH4CL is replaced by KOH."

So I wonder, what excuse profits will come up with now....
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: tim123 on January 24, 2014, 10:02:54 AM
I've found a few links to what sound like similar devices. Profitis - is this the same? They have similarities to what you posted, but they don't look quite the same...

 - Nernst Equation - http://qmviews.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/chem-001-nernst-equation.html
 - Concentration Cells - http://dwb4.unl.edu/Chem/CHEM869U/CHEM869UMats/ConcentrationCells.html
 - http://alevelchem.com/aqa_a_level_chemistry/unit3.5/s353/02.htm
 - http://jes.ecsdl.org/content/158/6/B667.abstract
   "The Electromotive Force of a Hydrogen and/or Oxygen Concentration Cell Using 10 mol % In-doped CaZrO3 as the Solid Electrolyte"
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 24, 2014, 03:36:56 PM
@orbut: itsadonedeal baby..wink-wink ;-)  @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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 24, 2014, 03:58:01 PM
@tim those concentration cells are all type 1 concentration cells,electrolyte concentration cells,except the last one which is a type 2 concentration cell,an electrode concentration cell,which is the category for our cells here,including karpen,s cell,including the wikipedia o2 concentration cell.ours falls directly in line with the one explained here: www.chem.queensu.ca/people/faculty/mombourquette/Chem221/8_Equilibrium/Electrochem.asp where the species is hydrogen differentialy absorbed into nickel/palladium/platinum versus silver. The last cell you linked is of this type electrode concentration cell : www.askiitians.com/iit-jee-chemistry/physical-chemistry/concentration-cell.aspx ,where we must put in energy to create a pressure differiential across two identical gaseous electrodes.our gaseous electrodes create a concentration differiential at equal pressure without expenditure of energy on our part.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on January 24, 2014, 05:06:54 PM
What would be the best electrolyte for the palladium and silver cell so there would be no reaction to the electrodes?

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 24, 2014, 05:26:30 PM
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.

Anyway I hope this is ok...my cat jumped into the frame, while I was trying to take the picture.  You know how cats are.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 24, 2014, 05:50:52 PM
@lumen.potassium hydroxide,sodium hydroxide by far the best.sodium carbonate(washing soda),sodium tri-phosphate also excellent.make them concentrated.alkaline electrolytes are necessary.its like a fuel cell without air.you can use blackened nickel anode with rough etched copper cathode(copper not brass or bronze) and copper connecting wires in sodium hydroxide but be careful,air contamination corrodes the copper rapidly.you have to be certain that all surface metallic oxides and traces of oxygen present have been completely chemicaly reduced by the hydrogen before sealing.you must let the system rest a day or two under H2 to saturate the system,load it,before sealing.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 24, 2014, 06:23:31 PM
@lumen.i forgot,you must thoroughly rinse nickel after the plating process.do not dunk it into alkaline electrolyte straight from the plating bath.rinse thoroughly first.to blacken silver or copper use them as an anode first in an sodium hydroxide electrolyte bath with a graphite cathode for a minute of two,then swap polarity and cathodize them until H2 bubbles stream off them hecticly.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 24, 2014, 07:08:32 PM
.i,l post a photo after.
So where's your photo liar?

Just wondering.  :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: tim123 on January 24, 2014, 07:31:20 PM
Profitis,
  from the evidence you have provided, and from what is available online, it seems that your understanding of concentration cells is incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_cell
Quote
A concentration cell is a limited form of a galvanic cell that has two equivalent half-cells

The picture of the cell you are describing here has only one cell with two electrodes in it:
http://www.overunity.com/12207/quentron-com/msg382512/#msg382512

Perhaps the device you describe does work as you suggest, but it doesn't look like it's a 'concentration cell' - because there is only 1 cell - hence no concentration gradient.

Regards, Tim
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 24, 2014, 09:33:50 PM
here@sarkeizen,without furballs in the way.see,you was lying,your book doesnt have my quote on page 304 :-)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 24, 2014, 09:40:55 PM
its an electrode concentration cell @tim.the gradient is between electrodes not electrolyte :-).
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 24, 2014, 09:57:14 PM
here@sarkeizen,without furballs in the way.see,you was lying
Lying about what?  I have the book, I have page 304 and you saw there is no nernst equation there.

Why won't you show the whole page?  I did...what are you hiding...and your photo is really grainy...and why is your page number on the side of the page...you sure you didn't photoshop that?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 24, 2014, 10:12:04 PM
and im supposed to take your word for it @sarkeizen? I mean,i didnt even see the words sienko n plane anywhere.all i saw was a cat and some info about zinc-carbons.shocking man.. Please send a pic of the book title on the page,then we,l know you have sienko n plane :-)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 24, 2014, 10:31:11 PM
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.

Quote
I mean,i didnt even see the words sienko n plane
Proves 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

You sent some fuzzy photo of some book that puts page numbers in the left margin, underneath a topic heading, flush with the left edge of the text?

Riiiiiiiiight. :D 

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: tim123 on January 24, 2014, 10:40:26 PM
Profitis, every link you provided, and the phrase 'concentration cell' itself, implies a galvanic reation, or transferrence of pressure / concentration.

While the diagram you provided may be a functional device, it's not related to the links, or the phrase.

None of the devices works by some quantum separation effect - as the quentron is supposed to.

So unless you can either:
 1) Provide any references related to your diagram / idea, or
 2) Build & demo the thing yourself.

Then I won't be pursuing this any more.

Regards, Tim
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 24, 2014, 10:54:32 PM
Lol.quit lying @sarkeizen.sienko nd plane has its name printed clearly on every page at the top :-).anyway,its not important because any textbook with info on the nernst formula can be used to predict and sustain ambient-pressure gaseous electrode concentration cells @sarkeizen,without interference from the monster kelvin law...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 24, 2014, 10:55:39 PM
1) Provide any references related to your diagram / idea, or
Well I knew you would get there eventually. :D
Quote
Build & demo the thing yourself
Yeah about that...remember the claim is that it runs eternally right?  So there's no actual empirical test for that right?

Now you could argue that you could build something that goes beyond the output (or some other metric) that is expected but  that runs into exactly the same way that Philip fooled himself, lumen fooled and continues to fool himself, and so on...

The amount of examination you can do of a system in a forum like this, simply isn't very good.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 25, 2014, 12:07:49 AM
quit lying @sarkeizen.sienko nd plane has its name printed clearly on every page at the top
Well thanks for admitting you lied...(again)

a) You are lying, as I doubt you have looked at every page.
b) You are lying, since you can clearly see the top of the page in my photo.  If this was such a clear and unambiguous piece of evidence it would have jumped out at you.  It wouldn't have been "I didn't see those words anywhere".  It would have been "Hey it's missing the byline at the top this is a fake".   
c) You could have settled this, totally and completely by simply posting the photo, unfortunately I guess you have to take time to try and photoshop something. :D

Please post it when you are done.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 25, 2014, 10:20:52 PM
@tim its directly related to my links and it works by a quantum work function differential affecting potential differential,like any galvanic cell,the only difference is a gas pressure difference arises at equilibrium(energy diagram shown below).
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 25, 2014, 10:29:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 25, 2014, 11:17:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 26, 2014, 01:07:17 AM
no im disappointed  @sarkeizen,because you still wont tell US how kelvin statement fits in with the WIKIPEDIA OX-Y-GEN CONCENTRATION CELL...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 26, 2014, 02:45:18 AM
no im disappointed
Nice to see you've comes to grips with lying about having the textbook
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 26, 2014, 03:50:22 AM
@sarkeizen
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 26, 2014, 04:05:31 AM
@sarkeizen
Well thanks for confirming that you lied...

It's not every day someone gives you photographic evidence which pretty much makes it impossible that they own the book in question.

So now what?  Are you going to apologize?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 26, 2014, 05:37:34 AM
lol.im pulling your leg @sarkeizen,lighten up.i dont know what edition my sienko-n-plane is but i dont know if i should apologize because your statement that theres no nernst subtitle is highly suspect,possibly corrupt,seeing that it covers electrochemistry.btw i dont see how your inability to show kelvin statement in a stated cell in wikipedia,amongst other encyclopedias is in any way ignorant or null and void and i believe its in your best interests as lawyer(for your client,lord kelvin) to put this issue straight right now before the jury goes in for deliberation. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 26, 2014, 06:39:37 AM
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
Quote
i dont know if i should apologize
So 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

Quote
i dont see how your inability to show kelvin statement in a stated cell in wikipedia,amongst other encyclopedias is in any way ignorant
Have 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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 26, 2014, 05:30:01 PM
A)its a white lie and if i didnt admit it you wouldnt,ve been able to prove it without tremendous effort so you should thank me for saving you the effort @sarkeizen.you preach about ethics yet theres a section on the nernst equation in your book just a few pages ahead or behind your photo-page which you claim is non-existant putting you in a category of a liar of the 2nd type,a hardened liar,as opposed to a liar of the 1st type,a white liar or a liar of the 3rd type,a white liar that admits a white lie under non-duress...B)your ability to comment on something definitely affects YOUR case for defence of kelvin laws.this is about your ability to defend your client in this courtroom.thus when the jury see that you are unable to explain kelvin role in batteries mentioned in certain encyclopedias accused of being perpetual motion devices,a task that should be excessively easy for you,they begin to doubt your case.you were even challenged to bring in an expert witness to help your case but you didnt?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 27, 2014, 03:33:09 AM
A)its a white lie
Punishing 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?
Quote
and if i didnt admit it you wouldnt,ve been able to prove it without tremendous effort
Uh 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.
Quote
which you claim is non-existant putting you in a category of a liar
Please cite where I lied.  Sorry but you lose.
Quote
your ability to comment on something definitely affects
Nothing to do with textbooks.  So it can't actually support or deny your point.  Soooooo....again you are making an argument from ignorance.

Again, this isn't exactly a hard thing to check.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 27, 2014, 08:41:45 AM
...definitely affects your case.which makes you look like a bad defender of kelvin statement..which is what this is about...even mr tim123 who jumped into the thread all excited like a waiter on methamphetamine,then left with a 'call-me-later'note is thinking of returning @sarkeizen.its you making this thread semi-exciting with your inability to disprove perpetuum mobilum in wikipedia territory..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 27, 2014, 03:01:56 PM
...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.

So you lose. :D :D :D

So again, where did I lie....no cite there either.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 27, 2014, 09:05:53 PM
@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 is and B)why the discharge curves are the same pattern as replications of the wikipedia oxygen concentration cell and replications of the karpen cell.oh..and can you please explain why mr tim123 doesnt want to at least try building my suggested nickel/copper/hydrogen device,and test it on an ipod,just incase im right.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 27, 2014, 10:40:11 PM
@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 is
So 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

If you can't support your statement just man up and say so.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 27, 2014, 10:55:29 PM
..:D.. and can you explain to us why mr tim123 didnt try the nickel/copper/hydrogen device..@sarkeizen..:D.:D.:D......:D..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 28, 2014, 12:15:51 AM
..: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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 28, 2014, 09:09:33 AM
:D:D..and you dont suspect that a reversable contact potential difference,an type of equilibrium potential difference,has anything to do with my claimed reversable equilibrium gaseous pressure difference @sarkeizen?:D:D...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 28, 2014, 03:40:02 PM
: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 wikipedia
Currently 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.

The only thing that is going to make your argument something more than worthless is a textbook cite (since your point is about textbook content).

Again if you can't support that point and you want to argue something more speculative.  Then just let me know because considering that you've spent months lying and avoiding the point it seems pretty likely that you can't make it.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 28, 2014, 10:04:59 PM
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.replicability in 3 dimensions is numero uno and you know it.i can integrate a flying saucer into a textbook and it,d still be of zero value,unless it is replicable in 3 dimensional time-space continuum @sarkeizen.only for the sake of discussion do i link up citations of electrode concentration cells,wikipedia concentration cells,nernst equation,contact potential difference,work function,gaseous spillover effects etc.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 29, 2014, 12:57:57 AM
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.replicability
Naivety 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

Phillips $10 experiment is a good example.  He claimed lots of people replicated it, but Phillip is still wrong and will be forever.  Homeopathy has been replicated a few times however all the positive studies are all completely and utterly wrong.  Even non-crackpot stuff like drug therapies have experiments which were successful, replicated and completely and utterly wrong.  You would know this if you were capable of math above the kindergarten level.

Quote
i can integrate a flying saucer into a textbook and it,d still be of zero value
However your argument was that your eternal battery was in EVERY textbook.  It's much harder to do that than make an amateurish experimental mistake.
: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 Hence, your textbook argument is better than your building argument but you were too stupid to notice. :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

Quote
only for the sake of discussion do i link up citations of...
...nothing.  Remember you have no textbook citations.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 29, 2014, 04:42:00 AM
and so lets discuss textbooks then @sarkeizen.modern textbooks: lets build a cell of the type Pt/Carbon/hydrogen in potassium hydroxide electrolyte and discuss it from a perspective of a phenomena known as hydrogen spillover: www.intechopen.com/source/html/38711/media/image14.png and more on it down near the bottom here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adsorption .what say you?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 29, 2014, 02:10:00 PM
and so lets discuss textbooks then @sarkeizen.modern textbooks
Please 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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 29, 2014, 07:06:39 PM
Www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1244777021/ref=rediv_mdp_mobile is a an example of the more modern textbooks dealing with this subject @sarkeizen but lets stick to wikipedia for now ok.they,re basicly saying that theres a thermodynamic driving gradient to shove hydrogen or oxygen adsorbed on platinum/nickel/palladium directly onto other substrates e.g. carbon.so if we take a piece of platinum and a piece of carbon under hydrogen or oxygen gas and put the pieces in contact,gas spills,flows,runs unidirectionaly from the platinum piece directly onto the carbon piece until concentration gradient equilibrium is achieved. pull them apart,and you return to prior thermodynamicly favourable state,before they were in contact.with me so far? Contact=spillover...seperation=prior state..any complaints?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 29, 2014, 08:20:43 PM
is a an example of the more modern textbooks dealing with this subject
Yay more lying....

What you linked to on Amazon isn't a textbook.  It's a dissertation. It's interesting that you're too stupid to know the difference.  You just picked something that you hoped you could use to deceive me or other people reading (as you seem concerned about that).

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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 29, 2014, 08:49:18 PM
theres plenty textbooks on catalysis covering the subject @sarkeizen.i dont own any of them so i rely on internet for information on gaseous spillover : images.gizmag.com/hero/carbon-hydrogen-storage.jpg.. heres a journal publication: yadda.icm.edu.pl/yadda/element/bwmeta1.element.elsevier-b79c8766-68be-3913-8510-c5798c4b44ff .wikipedia will have to do for established science @sarkeizen.we will use it
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 29, 2014, 09:43:17 PM
heres something on palladium/copper H2 spillover: www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v12/n6/abs/nmat3620.html thus you take a piece of palladium and a piece of copper under hydrogen,bring them in contact,hydrogen spills over from palladium onto copper,,thermodynamicly favourable.seperate them and they return to prior most stable state,thermodynamicly favourable.2 entropy states.contact=spillover,seperate=prior state
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 29, 2014, 09:45:34 PM
theres plenty textbooks on catalysis
But 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
Quote
so i rely on internet for information on gaseous spillover
I 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.

Does this crap actually work on anyone you know?

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 29, 2014, 10:03:02 PM
it works for gaseous spillover@sarkeizen.And it opens a thermodynamic possibility for galvanic cells powered by gaseous spillover,in the same way that any spontaneous chemical reaction e.g. zinc + oxygen can be tapped electrochemicaly.and its no co-incidence that the gradient which drives gaseous spillover,is in fact a chemical concentration/activity gradient
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 29, 2014, 10:15:41 PM
you have to now show the jury how the kelvin statement applies to the thermodynamic cycle of gaseous flow between a catalyst particle and substrate particle in a wikipedia-type spillover closed system @sarkeizen.contact= unidirectional gas flow.seperation= random diffusion.2 seperate entropy states,one system.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 29, 2014, 11:14:13 PM
it works for
Then 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

Or are you giving me the victory that I think most people know I won a few months back and saying you can't support your point with virtually any textbook? :D :D

Do you need me to find where you said those things?  No?  Because you know you did and you know you are lying (for like the fourth time about a core issue).  Now just fess up. :D :D

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 30, 2014, 06:58:29 AM
not by a long-shot @sarkeizen.you,l get no victory until you can show us the role of kelvin statement in a closed gaseous spillover cycle.we the scientific community demand that you show us the role of kelvin statement when we contact a nickel particle to a copper particle under hydrogen and then pull them apart.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 30, 2014, 03:34:15 PM
not by a long-shot @sarkeizen
I'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.

And your argument falls, because you said it was in "all textbooks" (and even being generous and assuming you meant "virtually all" or even "most" your argument is pretty much toast).

If it can be demonstrated from ordinary textbooks like the one you dishonestly asked me to check.  Then well, you would have to demonstrate that. But I think we all know you can't and I think you know you cant...why?  Simple.

By appearances you have a textbook - not the one you asked me to look at but who knows why you would make a stupid mistake like that - except to be deceiving.  If you really had a clear and straightforward argument from that text then instead of spending months being an asshole.  You could have just stated your starting point from the text, if I doubted you.  You could have just supplied photographs of the pages in question.  Then you could have made your argument from there.  If I wanted to read the book myself, I could have simply procured a copy.

Instead what do you do?

Lie about things ("Oh I'll get you a textbook cite after coffee", "I'll get you a textbook cite if you answer this question?", etc..)
Attempt to distract from the point ("No you have to build it", "You have to disprove some statement that I completely made up about you")
Stall (Three months for a textbook cite?, Weeks avoiding answering simple questions.  Simply refusing to talk about issues with your argument)

From the beginning I've been on one point, you either can not support your statement about textbooks OR the support isn't nearly as strong as you say.

You know you've lost this.  Time to suck it up loserboy.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 30, 2014, 04:15:14 PM
so why dont you want to talk about the WIKIPEDIA OXYGEN CONCENTRATION CELL @sarkeizen? Anybody else notice this?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 30, 2014, 04:17:31 PM
or wikipedia gaseous spillover cycles @sarkeizen? Anybody else notice this?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 30, 2014, 04:31:12 PM
or the relation of wikipedia oxygen concentration cell to wikipedia catalyst oxygen gas spillover?anybody else notice this?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 30, 2014, 04:36:21 PM
or platinum-gold oxygen gas spillover,nevermind platinum-platinum oxygen gas spillover?anybody else notice this?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 30, 2014, 04:47:26 PM
Well, in short....your original statement that I disagreed with is about textbooks - all textbooks in fact (or virtually all or perhaps most).  So anything that doesn't start with a textbook citation can't really make that point.

Hence anything else is a distraction from this point.  So far you have produced no ordinary textbook cites about any of the other fantasies you are currently having.  Now in theory you could take an ordinary textbook like the one you deceived me into getting and demonstrate that it necessitates and predicts some wikipedia-unicorn-moron-thing and then attempt to try and demonstrate that such a thing necessitates a battery which powers an ipod-like device continually and eternally.

However a) You haven't done that b) It seems like the long way around to make your point c) It seems very, very, very, very, very much like you're just trying to distract from the point.  Since you yourself said that you discovered the wikipedia-monkey-karate-death-car during your postings with me.  However that was well after your made your statement about textbooks and well into your months of stalling.  So it's impossible for that have been the original reason for your statement.  So either you can still demonstrate your point from an ordinary textbook, or you realized that you can't and now are trying to snow me by bringing in all sorts of other non-textbooks things - most of which you don't appear to have read. :D :D :D :D :D

So why not jut own up, say you were wrong and move on?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 30, 2014, 05:01:46 PM
how can i say im wrong with the monster nernst equation staring me and you in the face @sarkeizen dont be like this .my only point,given that ambient pressure gaseous concentration cells BEHAVE AS EXPECTED,is that i dont see kelvin statement anywhere in their thermodynamic cycles of operation.do you? Does anybody? Let them speak up now..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 30, 2014, 05:10:34 PM
how can i say im wrong
Because 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.
Quote
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 31, 2014, 01:27:53 AM
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 expected @sarkeizen,expected.how do you personaly expect the nernst equation to apply to e.g. an ambient pressure oxygen electrode concentration cell?theres only one way,the way its supposed to apply.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 31, 2014, 04:06:01 AM
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 expected
Depends.  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.

So the fact that YOU expect some configuration of chemicals to behave in a certain way is not in dispute at all.  The problem is you said it's necessitated from an ordinary textbook which you still can't demonstrate.  I'm pretty sure you know you can't too.  So your only choice is to desperately try to change the subject...which is what you've been doing for months...and lying.

Just admit this and we can move on.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 31, 2014, 09:55:39 AM
Yes i mean by the large grand population of electrochemists man.why do you think i keep asking you to bring one such an expert onboard and why do you keep stalling with that too? Now show me a textbook that discusses an wikipedia-type equal pressure oxygen concentration cell @sarkeizen.cmon,show me.. And while your at it,show me a discussion about bismuth electrode concentration cells,or bromine electrode concentration cells..or germanium electrode concentration cells..or iodine electrode concentration cells..very hard or impossible to find,does that mean they dont exist? The nernst formula is infallible @sarkeizen,it applies to all concentration cells.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 31, 2014, 04:48:44 PM
Yes i mean by the large grand population of electrochemists
Then 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.

You can't, so that alone means that this line of discussion where you fantasize about how most electrochemists agree with you can't make your point about textbooks.  So it's irrelevant.

Quote
very hard or impossible to find,does that mean they dont exist?

It doesn't mean that they do either and if these are the only examples of a text which makes your point.  Then....

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
:D You have just conceded the argument. :D
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Congratulations!!!! You lost and it only took you three months to realize what was clear to anybody with high-school logic in the first few posts.

Also thank you for providing a new lower bound for "stupid people I have met on the internet".

Of course...if these examples which you clearly just googled and sort of fabricated or deluded a connection between them and your own ideas.  If these AREN'T the only way to make your point.  Then they are - yet another - dodge.  Yawn.
Quote
The nernst formula is infallible
See this is where I think you are just purely trolling, such a monumental level of ignorance about how physical formulae are derived is crazy.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on January 31, 2014, 06:51:21 PM
lol @sarkeizen.you only win when you show a disconnection to the textbooks between a equal-pressure gaseous electrode concentration cell and the average college chem textbook.use jennifer lopez equation if you want,just find a spot for kelvin rule..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on January 31, 2014, 10:23:31 PM
lol @sarkeizen.you only win when
You 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.

So again, are you saying you can't support your "eternal continuous ipod battery" from an ordinary textbook?  If you can, please do so...if not please give me some dodge, evasion, demand to build, demand to provide a proof of something I didn't say, demand to provide some member of the scientific community to speak...as a means of letting me know that you concede the point. :D :D :D

Take your time. :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 01, 2014, 12:56:26 AM
@sarkeizen.cycle 1 (on): compression of gas satisfies electrochemical entropy at expense of temperature entropy.cycle 2 (off): decompression of gas in line with temperature entropy. How is this concentration cell cycle incompatible with rules of college textbooks.theres zero incompatibility.zero incompatibility means we can use a college textbook to predict this repeatable cycle.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 01, 2014, 12:41:30 PM
this reversable cyle.totaly compatible with and predictable by college textbook rules @sarkeizen
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on February 01, 2014, 03:43:38 PM
Alternative Sebby Diagram to help people understand how asymmetry makes it work.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 01, 2014, 08:51:55 PM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on February 02, 2014, 09:59:29 AM
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?


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.


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 02, 2014, 10:24:14 AM

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on February 02, 2014, 10:42:42 AM
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.


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?


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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 02, 2014, 12:15:41 PM

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?
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.
Quote


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
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on February 02, 2014, 12:28:49 PM
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.


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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 02, 2014, 12:35:34 PM
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.


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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on February 02, 2014, 01:18:34 PM
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.


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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 02, 2014, 02:33:06 PM

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.
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 am not familiar with your $10. experiment.  I would have to know more about the intent and construction in order to comment on it.

What are you trying to determine with the experiment?
How is the experiment designed to test what it is that you are trying to determine?
What are the error tolerances for the measurements?
What null experiments are included to determine that the experiment as designed can determine what it is that you want to determine?
What experiment results have been measured to date?

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on February 03, 2014, 12:17:14 AM
@MarkE, I thought you already knew of the experiment.


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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 03, 2014, 12:27:23 AM
@MarkE, I thought you already knew of the experiment.


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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on February 03, 2014, 12:45:58 AM
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.


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. 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.


You and others on these sites also tell me I must have made a mistake.


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.


 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on February 03, 2014, 01:08:35 AM
Here is the one pager I posted somewhere else.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 03, 2014, 01:48:09 AM

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.

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.
Quote

 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.
What do you mean when you say: "converting ambient heat to power with 100% efficiency"? 

Do you think you can convert an isothermal reservoir into two reservoirs:  one at a higher temperature and one at a colder temperature than the original without an external energy source?  Such a feat would be quite remarkable and demand very strong evidence.  Certainly, the extraordinary nature of the claim strongly suggests that error is probable.
Quote


You and others on these sites also tell me I 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.
Quote


The next bit where you give me a lecture is downright rude, the fact is I know this science clearly better than you do,

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.
Quote

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MileHigh on February 03, 2014, 01:53:23 AM
Philip:

Somebody around here that is long gone ran that experiment in a toaster oven!  A bloody toaster oven and you endorsed their results!  That's not an isothermal environment at all.  In fact it was more of a nightmare for the experimenter because the toaster oven itself started smoking and started to melt down.

The fact that you would endorse that farcical "experiment" does not give me the warm and fuzzies.  I also seem to recall that from about two years ago the claim was something like 100 or perhaps 1000 amperes per square centimeter but you never stated the voltage output.  So for me the alleged current density claim and the ignoring of translating that into a power output claim is not confidence inspiring.  We are assuming that you have a very good heat reservoir, like a high rate of water passing across your device (like a water cooling system for a high-end PC).  But that was never discussed by you either as far as I can recall.

Another issue that never really got seriously discussed is that if you actually had working semiconductor devices, then there is only so much thermal power that can flow into the device based on the thermal resistance of the ambient medium that the chip finds itself in.  We can assume an infinite heat reservoir.  So assuming 100% efficiency, them the rate of thermal power that lands on the device and gets converted into electricity is a major concern.  This would choke the available power output from your alleged device also.  You can imagine "cold spots," thermal energy sinks, due to the existence of your device.  Effectively it could become a thermal-electrical perpetual motion machine:  "thermal sink -> electrical -> resistive heater -> thermal sink."  Some people posted taking it very seriously saying that a cell phone could power itself by putting one of your chips on top of the main processor chip.

I realize that I am mostly discussing the "mechanics" here and they are secondary to proving the device works as claimed.  However, there were many wild claims made about your device assuming that it actually worked that totally ignored these "thermal mechanics" issues. I note that you never seemed to be interested in addressing these issues yourself.

Free energy cars powered by ambient heat that leave a wake of extremely cold air as they drive down the highway?  I don't think so.  (Note the car would also leave a wake of heated air that would be in balance with the extremely cold air.)

Meanwhile we wait for the timing of the "next" goal post.

MileHigh
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 03, 2014, 03:11:43 AM
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. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on February 03, 2014, 03:49:21 AM
Mr. Hardcastle ...... In the experiment as it is sparsely outlined, there are two heat reservoirs in the system....




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.



Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 03, 2014, 04:54:43 AM



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.
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:
Quote
"There is no process whose only effect is to accept heat from a single reservoir and transform it entirely into work."

Your apparatus has much more than just a single heat reservoir.  It has at least two reservoirs and an input power source.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on February 03, 2014, 05:22:26 AM
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.


It, the device under test, does not operate between two reservoirs, it does not operate with a temperature difference across its thickness, end of argument.


It, the single reservoir, receives ac input power only because we lose heat through the oven walls to ambiebt, if the DUT was in a natural 550C reservoir we would not be having this stupid conversation about input power to an oven.


MarkE, if you insist on saying the DUT is in two reservoirs then I have to believe you are being deliberately obtuse.


I will not respond to further silly statements on this thread, if you have something sensible to say you can email me.


The plot was done by a Canadian physicist from the university of Montreal, he carefully measured in upward and downward paused steps, the curves are identical in both directions.


Result have been obtained in a few other labs with near identical results.


There have been 2 experiments where the voltage was produced but with little current, these are simply the result of using old tubes with cathode work function higher than the spec due to them being 30 year old devices.


BTW if you look at the construction of a pentode the cathode is completely surrounded by the anode, so when the tube is being heated it is 100% certain that the cathode is not hotter than the anode.


All my experiments showed summed currents with DUT's in parallel, added voltages when done in series, and all done with extreme temperature control. Also done was the DUT shorted out which gives zero outputs.


Apart from the Chief Scientist of a major technology company there was also a gentleman here that modified his toaster oven which managed to get the temperature to 500C plus, he did apparently get smoking wires that made him ill, and he did get an output the same as many others, 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.


I again suggest you use the pentode, once you understand the single reservoir and thermocouple theory issues, and use your access to equipment and an hour of your time to do the simple experiment, then when you get the 850mV output and see a current of 5uA you can go about showing us how you can account for it with the status quo.



Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 03, 2014, 05:25:41 AM
zero incompatibility means we can use a college textbook to predict this repeatable cycle.
Yawn.

Well, a couple of things:

i) You haven't presented any formal argument demonstrating that there's zero incompatibility.  You just assumed it.  Assuming something isn't the same as proving it.  This should be obvious to even a stupid person.

ii) Even if you could demonstrate something like there is "no contradiction" between the two position.   The fact that there exists no contradiction between two principles (A & B) i.e. A does not imply !B and B does not imply !A.  That is actually NOT the same as saying A implies B.  Again something you would know if you had more than a 5th grade education.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 03, 2014, 05:48:10 AM
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".

I really have to ask..."In what sense".  While he was doing that I was probably playing X-Box.  While we could both be considered "doing something" in a broad sense.  I'm not sure either of us could be considered "usefully attempting to replicate the alleged sebby effect".
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 03, 2014, 07:02:31 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on February 03, 2014, 08:36:53 AM
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". 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.


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.


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.


predicted carnot limit = 4 uW thermal input flux x .001/1000 = 4pW (this is 1,000,000 times smaller than the measure output)


So something exceeding the Carnot efficiency limit by such a massive factor should ring some positive bells in your head.


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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 03, 2014, 09:30:16 AM

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".

Unfortunately, you do not have a device immersed in a single thermal reservoir.  If you did, then in order to violate the Kelvin statement you would have to show that device dividing that single reservoir into hotter and colder sections without the benefit of outside energy.  On top of that you have a source of outside energy. 

We could take your experiment and instead of connecting the lead wires to a meter, enclose them in a cylinder fitted with a piston.  Heat conducted by the wires would heat and expand gas in the cylinder and push on the piston.  No thermodynamic laws would be violated. 
Quote

 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.

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.
Quote

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.

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.
Quote

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.

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.
Quote


predicted carnot limit = 4 uW thermal input flux x .001/1000 = 4pW (this is 1,000,000 times smaller than the measure output)

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.
Quote


So something exceeding the Carnot efficiency limit by such a massive factor should ring some positive bells in your head.

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.
Quote

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
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: wings on February 03, 2014, 09:37:28 AM
"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure about anything."
~ Richard Feynman, Nobel Price in physics, 1965
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 03, 2014, 09:47:47 AM
Those are wise words from an extremely intelligent physicist.  Carefully designed experiments that can actually tell the difference between the null and the actual hypothesis are valuable tools that help us find our way through the darkness.  Experiments that can't discern the null from the actual hypothesis can't reveal anything new.  They can unfortunately mislead.  That seems to be the case with Mr. Hardcastle's experiment.  Whether his idea that the Second Law can be broken or not cannot be distinguished by his experiment.  Some other experiment is needed.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: wings on February 03, 2014, 10:57:29 AM
Second Law can be broken!

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

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 03, 2014, 12:06:08 PM
Second Law can be broken!

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
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.

The graphene "heat" battery uses two dissimilar metals in an electrolytic solution.  The researchers need to rule out that they have simply built an electrochemical battery.

If Mr. Hardcastle is to prove his claims, he needs to set-up a test that actually goes after the Kelvin statement of the Second Law of Energy.  The experiment that he has presented is not up to the task.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 03, 2014, 01:24:25 PM
@sarkeizen 1)a concentration cell is not informal.it is fully compliant with textbook rules governing concentration cells.the nernstian equation holding strong and totalitarian.that diagram is a diagram of a concentration cell.that diagram is a diagram of a wikipedia oxygen concentration cell.you have to prove otherwise. 2)even if i demonstrate a working everlasting battery between your 2 positions A and B it doesnt imply that your implications are atrociously meaningless? Try shoving palladium and silver in electrolyte under hydrogen sometime and come back to me with your complaints.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 03, 2014, 01:35:22 PM
@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? :-)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 03, 2014, 01:57:49 PM
@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.

If you can build a perpetual battery, have you done so and disconnected from the utility grid?  If you haven't disconnected, then why not?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 03, 2014, 02:33:59 PM
@sarkeizen 1)a concentration cell is not informal.it is fully compliant with textbook rules governing concentration cells
You are simply re-stating part of your hypothesis here.  It's not a formal argument, which would be required to make your point.
Quote
2)even if i demonstrate a working everlasting battery
This is, as mentioned before impossible to demonstrate purely empirically.  So it's begging the question. 
Quote
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,.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 04, 2014, 07:17:09 AM
@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 (-:.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 04, 2014, 07:21:52 AM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 04, 2014, 08:22:48 AM
@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 draw
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 04, 2014, 09:03:28 AM
@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 draw
Profitis, a battery that discharges is by definition not perpetual.  You said that your battery has a discharge curve.  Therefore your battery is not perpetual. 

Quote
@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 (-:.

If you want to claim that you have some other free power source that can recharge your battery once discharged, or run loads on its own, then that is something different.  Of course if you want anyone to believe such an extraordinary claim, you will need to produce strong evidence for that claim.


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 04, 2014, 09:49:06 AM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 04, 2014, 10:52:38 AM
@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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 04, 2014, 05:12:10 PM
A battery that discharges repeatedly inbetween auto-charging repeatedly isnt perpetual?
Not in any useful sense of the term.

You could attach a battery to a photoelectric panel which charges it when you switch it off and get the same stated outcomes (which you will now add to instead of admitting you're wrong).   The only difference is that in one case you know the environment which charges the battery and you know why it doesn't violate 2LOT and in the other you are saying it's magic because you decided not to think about it (or more precisely you decided it was magic and then tried to google documents to help convince yourself that you're not just talking about fairy dust).
Quote
the entire class of name-I-stupidly-just-made-up-from-googling-batteries auto-recharge
Yawn.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: roguetechie on February 04, 2014, 08:40:59 PM
Sark... can't spell the rest of your username correctly by memory sorry..

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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 04, 2014, 09:52:55 PM
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.

My difficulty with 2LOT violations in principle is that they violate information theory.  In addition Philip's device specifically appears to violate complexity theory in that it could be used as a quantum computational device which does sorting in O(n) time.   However we already know you can't do that using a classical computer and we also already know that you can't do that with a quantum machine.   So if classical and quantum effects are accounted for, what is doing the computation?

My difficulty with alleged 2LOT Violators is that they usually deal in such small quantities that statistically there is a far, far, far,far greater likelihood that they are making a mistake.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 04, 2014, 10:01:18 PM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 04, 2014, 10:22:22 PM
@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 ipod.we are still waiting for you and mark E to tell us how the cell mentioned in wikipedia under the name 'oxygen concentration cell' goes dead flat and how kelvin statement fits in with wikipedia,s catalyst thermodynamic spillover cycle.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 04, 2014, 10:48:47 PM
@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 ipod
Still, only assertions and no textbook cite or formal argument.  Let me know when you get around to doing this.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 04, 2014, 11:06:12 PM
@sarkeizen..no.i want to use the term 'wikipedia' because nobody beside you is complaining about it.i want to use the term wikipedia because wikipedia is trusted by the majority.i also want to use the term wikipedia because it,s a cool sounding word,wiki-wiki-pedia-wiki.we the scientific community demand you and mark E describe the role of kelvin statement in oxygen concentration cells and catalyst oxygen spillover thermodynamic cycle.NOW.before i get angry again..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 04, 2014, 11:12:41 PM
Sark... can't spell the rest of your username correctly by memory sorry..

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?
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.

Professor Sheehan from San Diego offers many reasons why the Second Law of Energy is unsatisfying.  He notes that even though other first principles have been modified over time the Second Law hasn't.  So, there are reasons that we can suspect that perhaps the Second Law is not absolute despite our experience so far that it is.  In the case of Mr. Hardcastle, his experiments can't tell us if his ideas can beat the Second Law.  If he wants to pursue his ideas he needs to design an experiment that can discern a violation.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 04, 2014, 11:24:58 PM
@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. 

If you want to test your claim that a Karpen cell violates the Second Law, then show such a cell cooling the environment.   Show that inserting a Karpen cell in a Dewar flask filled with mineral oil cools that flask while the output from the cell heats a resistor inserted into another Dewar flask filled with mineral oil where the oil in each flask starts at the same temperature.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 04, 2014, 11:48:31 PM
@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
Quote
we the stupid community demand you
Exactly how is it reasonable to demand I refute something that you refuse to define, cite properly or argue?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 05, 2014, 12:09:39 AM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 05, 2014, 12:19:48 AM
@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.

It is well known that platinum group metals have a high affinity for hydrogen.  That fact is relied upon extensively in the petroleum industry.  It does not change the fact that it takes energy to break the chemical bonds that bind hydrogen atoms in other molecules so that one ends up with molecular hydrogen.  If one has a battery that "recharges" using molecular hydrogen, then one has a device that runs down as it consumes the molecular hydrogen.

A Dewar flask would not be very effective if one could read the internal temperature from the outside with an IR camera.  Fortunately, thermocouples and thermistors are widely available that will perform the temperature sense function.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 05, 2014, 12:21:58 AM
sarkeizen sarkeizen,mr sarkeizen, i have already placed a diagram up for you of the mentioned wikipedia device.the temperature is 25celcius,electrolyte concentration 1m h2so4.now you have all the specs,now whats your objection going to be eyyy... Anything but kelvin rule eyyy...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 05, 2014, 12:58:30 AM
i have already placed a diagram up for you
Can I take that to mean that virtually every textbook does not contain sufficient information to necessitate the existence of eternal batteries? :D :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 05, 2014, 01:38:19 AM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 05, 2014, 02:00:47 AM
 @sarkeizen grrrrrr >:(
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 05, 2014, 02:25:09 AM
@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. 

If it is your intent to defend your claim that there are batteries that recharge themselves you need strong evidence for that extraordinary claim.

If it is your intent to defend your claim that Karpen cells violate the Second Law by removing heat from their immediate environment, then again you need strong evidence for that extraordinary claim.  At least that claim operating at room temperature can be tested without great difficulty.  Mr. Hardcastle's claim presents a difficult experiment design challenge because of the high temperature condition that his idea requires and the associated heat leakage issues.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 05, 2014, 02:30:47 AM
@sarkeizen grrrrrr >:(
So in other words you concede the point?  You can't take an ordinary textbook and make your argument.

Well, you could have admitted that sooner instead of being an asshole about it. :D :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 05, 2014, 08:36:41 PM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 05, 2014, 08:54:06 PM
@sarkeizen lol you cant take an ordinary textbook and unmake my arguments,not even with your clients daft statement :-)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 05, 2014, 09:40:02 PM
@sarkeizen lol you cant take an ordinary textbook and unmake my arguments
That 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.

So far I have an chemistry textbook that you selected (even though you don't have it), and it does not appear to have any information suggesting eternal batteries.  So this must reduce our confidence in your assertion.

So what evidence is there to support your assertion that textbooks *do* necessitate eternal and continuous batteries?

Let me know when you come up with some. :D :D :D

no one has yet risen to that challenge.no one has even risen to my challenge over 2 wikipedia instances
Nobody 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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 05, 2014, 10:52:09 PM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 06, 2014, 09:03:20 PM
@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 cell e.g.the karpen device and the wikipedia oxygen device. B) i need to define,support,provide cites,provide data for you to show me kelvins ROLE in 2 wikipedia instances? Is this a joke?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 06, 2014, 09:26:00 PM
@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:D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 06, 2014, 09:29:53 PM
@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 cell
Not 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.

Claiming that my inability to demonstrate anything somehow affects the truth of a statement like "(all) textbooks necessitate that you can build a battery that lasts forever and works continually" - is a logical fallacy - specifically an "argument from ignorance".
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 06, 2014, 09:49:41 PM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 06, 2014, 10:06:21 PM
the nernst equation is no fallac
I'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.
Quote
youre basicly saying that the nernst equation doesnt lead directly to a working wikipedia oxygen device
I can't be saying that because you've never provided a useful definition of what that is.  :D :D :D

What I am saying is that a) You haven't provided a correct cite from an ordinary textbook and b) You haven't provided a formal logical argument to the conclusion "therefore it is impossible for an eternal battery to not exist and it is also impossible to rationally claim that it can not be built".

Clearly you have provided neither of those, so clearly you have not provided a relevant argument to your point that an ordinary textbook NECESSITATES the existence and ability to build a battery which can power an ipod like device continually and eternally.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 06, 2014, 10:19:11 PM
@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:D
Profitis 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 06, 2014, 10:23:10 PM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 07, 2014, 01:24:45 AM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 07, 2014, 01:58:05 AM
@sarkeizen where exactly did i not necessitate the construction of perpetual batteries by looking in textbooks in this thread?you have to now DE-NECESSITATE the ability of textbooks to uphold a spontaneously reversable gaseous concentration cell cycle in violation of kelvin law.specificly at the point of the cycle where equilibrium is reached and gas has been transfered in accord with faraday,s law of electrochemical equivalency.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 07, 2014, 02:05:04 AM
@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:

1) A battery that recharges itself when unloaded.
2) A battery that recharges itself by withdrawing heat from a single ambient heat reservoir with no other colder reservoir.

I would be absolutely delighted to see proof of either claim. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 07, 2014, 02:35:29 AM
excellent @mark E. I,l let you know.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 07, 2014, 05:25:27 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 09, 2014, 12:52:49 AM
it was exceptionaly formal @sarkeizen.the way i bridged the gap between textbooks and this website by throwing down a nernstian bridge strait into the heart of concentration cell territory necessitating a thorough cross-examination of your client,s statement.like a sword straight into the bulls neck in the arena. Its time for you to start thinking about how this is going to affect information theory in the future.how the assymetry of switching between two reversable entropy states is going to change your formula.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 09, 2014, 01:32:52 AM
it was exceptionaly formal @sarkeizen.the way i bridged the gap between textbooks and this website by throwing down a nernstian
A 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". 

You have provided:

a) No useful cite
b) No series of statements which force each other and end with the aforementioned conclusion.

Hence you have provided no formal argument.   Which is probably the only reason why this argument is still ongoing.  Because you know you would lose.  If you provided the things I've been asking for months.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 09, 2014, 01:49:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 09, 2014, 02:12:35 AM
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

Hint: I've defined it about four times, once was just minutes ago. :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 09, 2014, 12:56:06 PM
@sarkeizen.i disagree.you have absolutely no choice but to show a discontinuity line and inaccommodation between textbooks and the entire class of gaseous electrochemical spillover cells and their cyclical thermodynamics.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 09, 2014, 03:46:28 PM
@sarkeizen.i stupidly disagree because I am trying to change the subject.
You may disagree but...
 
i) If you had provided the formal argument you could point out exactly where you did that.  However you can't.
ii) If I doubted you, you could simply repost the same arguments.  However you can't.
iii) If I doubted what you post is, in fact a formal argument.  You could point out how it is a series of statements beginning with your (currently non-existent) cite and ending with your conclusion.  However you can't.

So you have provided no reason to believe that you have presented a formal argument. So there is nothing for me to respond to.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 10, 2014, 05:14:35 AM
@sarkeizen..gibberish.if i drew a diagram of a lightbulb you would know it belongs to textbooks.if i drew a diagram of a d.c.motor you would know it belongs to textbooks.if i drew a diagram of a catalytic gaseous spillover cell(which ive done here) you would know it belongs to textbooks.only an idiot wouldnt know.thus the thermodynamics of these mentioned items must by default also be predictable at a mere whim of a glimpse.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 10, 2014, 05:31:15 AM
@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. 

Again, if you had made a formal argument.  You could say where you did...you can't.
If I didn't believe it, you could repost it.  You can't.
If I didn't think what you post is a formal argument.  You could point out how it is a sequence of statements, stemming from a textbook cite each of which forces the other.  You can't.

You know this.  So now you are blathering about how I need to accept some hand-drawn diagram of yours as a formal argument.

It isn't and I don't. 

Come back when you have an argument worth something.  Right now, you don't.   Moron.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 10, 2014, 05:58:58 AM
@sarkeizen i did repost it from wikipedia under section titled,'oxygen concentration cell'.now tell us about its thermodynamics,,idiot.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 10, 2014, 02:22:12 PM
@sarkeizen i did repost it
So far you have posted nothing that fits the definition of a formal argument.

Remember: "You could point out how it is a sequence of statements, stemming from a textbook cite each of which forces the other."  So your post needs a series of statements starting with your cite and ending with your conclusion.

Can you point to where you did that?  Nope.
Can you reproduce where you did that?  Nope.
Can you post nonsense and claim it's a formal argument?  Sure.
Can you demonstrate how what you post is a formal argument?  Nope.

Come back when you have an point that isn't a worthless piece of shit. :D :D :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 10, 2014, 03:52:29 PM
lol @sarkeizen your talking such utter crap man and you know it.is it sooo hard to accept that your info formula is screwed.whats the big deal man you,l live through it ok.design some other computer and get rich now before some other smartass reading this shit pulls through namsayn. That fucking article on wikipedia IS NOT going to disappear ok.your gona have to fucking face that shit sooner or later,better sooner to ride that wave now while you can man.do you think that its only hardcastle and me onto this shit? That we,re the only clowns around here waking up to the evidence at hand? Get real man and do the fucking experiment i told you to do.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 10, 2014, 03:59:01 PM
lol @sarkeizen your talking such utter crap man and you know it.
All you have to do to disprove me is...

i) Copy and paste your formal argument into a post.
ii) Show that it starts with an ordinary textbook cite and ends with your conclusion "virtually all textbooks necessitate the existence of and the ability to build a battery which will power an ipod-like device continually and eternally.
iii) Each statement in-between must force the next.  That is, there is no other possible logically-valid outcome.

However you can't.  :D :D  Isn't that interesting? :D :D I think it's interesting :D :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 10, 2014, 04:16:02 PM
geez im going to explode now,somebody please hand me a beer to chill...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 10, 2014, 04:24:49 PM
geez im going to explode now,somebody please hand me a beer to chill...
Before you explode could you...

i) Copy and paste your formal argument into a post.
ii) Show that it starts with an ordinary textbook cite and ends with your conclusion "virtually all textbooks necessitate the existence of and the ability to build a battery which will power an ipod-like device continually and eternally.
iii) Each statement in-between must force the next.  That is, there is no other possible logically-valid outcome.

I'm pretty sure you can't. :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 10, 2014, 11:14:23 PM
@sarkeizen no need to go through all that shit. Check it out: the science teacher can ask the student,'hey fran,do me a favour and go draw a diagram of an oxygen diffusion concentration cell and splain to me the thermodynamics'.the kid wouldnt have a choice but to splain the thermodynamics: electrochemical entropy at expense of temperature entropy followed by temperature entropy.repeat cycle.everyone is satisfied everyone is happy.why? Because it fits in so nicely with the textbooks (-:. Electrochemical entropy is always number one with batteries @sarkeizen.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 10, 2014, 11:32:43 PM
@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.

A hand drawn diagram, with no cite to a textbook is clearly weaker than a formal argument stemming from a textbook cite.

Since you are clearly arguing a very, very, very strong relationship between the evidence you claim exists (but can't cite) and your conclusion.

:D :D I win. :D :D  Yawn....thanks for playing.   Moron.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 11, 2014, 12:08:37 AM
lol yeah you win a noddy badge @sarkeizen.so instead of interrogating me directly on the physics of concentration cells like your supposed to do your attempt to sabotage efforted steps to cite-and-splain this shit by your incessant uploading some non-relevency e.g. english lit,spacebars,punctuation, 'correct' textbook editions,'wrong' encyclopedias,'dishonest' tendencies,perpetual definitions,eternal irrelevencies,etc etc,didnt pay off. But hey,i have to give you some credit,after all it was you who catalysed that wikipedia article discovery of mine.maybe your on my side in this courtcase and i dont even know it @sarkeizen.i must be careful
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: SeaMonkey on February 11, 2014, 12:14:34 AM
Sarkeizen plays the game of "legalism" where
the rules of procedure determine who "wins"
and who "loses."  It is precisely the same game
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.

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.

The world-wide system of deception and exploitation
is nearing its end... 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 11, 2014, 12:36:58 AM
true @seamonkey however if twasnt for sarkeizen,s incessant lawyertwists i wouldve still been sitting silent,waiting for a courtcase,something to ponder.. Thus we can say that both the anti and the pro are necessary for evolution of some kind of knowledge,discovery.i was just saying this to mark dansie not so long ago with regards to his neverending scuffle with stirling allen.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 11, 2014, 01:10:25 AM
so instead of interrogating me directly on the physics of concentration cells
Dude, 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.

Quote
sabotage efforted steps to cite-and-splain this shit
ROFL.  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.
Quote
english lit,spacebars,punctuation
Your 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.
Quote
'correct' textbook editions
You are lying. You told me to get a completely different textbook than the one you appear to have.  This isn't about "editions" moron.
Quote
'wrong' encyclopedias
You 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.
Quote
'dishonest' tendencies
Dude, 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.
Quote
perpetual definitions
You 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.
Quote
eternal irrelevencies
Everything 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 game
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."
Going for an oscar?  You should with melodrama like that.

What I've asked Profitis for is simply the only question which I think can be reasonably determined here given what an enormous douche profitis is.  That is: "Can Profitis support his assertion to the degree which he has asserted it?".

The answer is...No.  He has said that textbooks and textbooks alone, without observing anything else can make his point about eternal batteries.  He has also stated that no textbook will directly and unambiguously  state "here's how you make an external battery".  So the ONLY way he can make his point is to argue using pure logic from an assertion (or assertions) in textbooks to his conclusion.   Which if you pay close attention you'll see is exactly what has been asked for and exactly what profitis the asshole has avoided doing for months.

Quote
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.

Seriously part of the benefit of a formal logical argument is that it is above deception.  It simply is valid or invalid.  Any ambiguity can be resolved with sufficient effort.  Which is a good reason for a deceptive person like profitis would avoid it.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 11, 2014, 02:22:19 AM
@sarkeizen ..so you,re basicly saying that you,re a stubborn-ass.that you must have a cite and a splain in the exact order you want,the punctuation you want,the way you want,forwards to backward,that i must show a predictive text starting from nernst equation to diffusion cells to spontaneous repetitive thermodynamics,correct? Without kelvin rules correct?for you to be satisfied by my argument yes?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 11, 2014, 03:22:16 AM
@sarkeizen ..so you,re basicly saying
I'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"

The only way that point can be made, since no textbook will outright say "hey here's how you build an eternal battery" is a formal logical argument starting at the cite and ending with your statement: "ALL TEXTBOOKS necessitate the existence of and ability to create a battery which will power an ipod-like device continually and eternally"

Anything else can not make your point.  I assume you are avoiding this because you know you can't.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 11, 2014, 08:50:13 AM
@sarkeizen so you want CITES and EXPLANATION from all  textbooks forcing nernst equation onto diffusion cells onto spontaneously reversable thermodynamics correct?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 11, 2014, 02:57:22 PM
@sarkeizen so you want CITES and EXPLANATION from all  textbooks
You know if you read my prior posts, instead of just being an asshole these things would be easier .

At least one cite from an ordinary textbook, for every external assumption.  The point of a cite is, as I said at least twenty times so that I don't have to depend on you for the interpretation of the text.  This is standard procedure in everything from research papers and high-school projects.  As stated before your argument must end with your prior statement as your conclusion: Therefore textbooks necessitate the existence of and ability to build a battery which can run an ipod like device constantly and eternally.

Incidentally since it's a *formal* argument - you can't use absence of evidence as evidence of absence.  So the fact that something doesn't mention something doesn't demonstrate it's independence.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 11, 2014, 04:30:27 PM
Stepping in here for a moment, my understanding of the Nernst equation is that entropy is implicit within it.  This leads me to two problems:  The first is that any process described by the equation is not 100% reversible.  The second is that my understanding is that 100% reversibility would translate only to the possibility of 100% energy cycle efficiency.  It would not allow for an infinite energy delivery that any finite load running perpetually would demand.  The reagents used in the cell react releasing energy and convert into waste product.  In a secondary cell the reactions can be reversed by adding energy back to the cell from an external source.  Absent an external recharging source, the best that we could do would be to construct a really big battery that would last a really long time on some defined finite load.  That wouldn't exactly be a perpetual cell.

What am I missing?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 11, 2014, 04:56:15 PM
@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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 11, 2014, 05:13:14 PM
@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. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 11, 2014, 05:29:38 PM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 11, 2014, 05:48:33 PM
yes demonstrate is the key word @sarkeizen i.e. to build and see however textbooks will have to do because you are there and i am here so again,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. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 11, 2014, 06:00:50 PM
@sarkeizen your implying that kelvin statement is necessary for all thermodynamic entropy requirements is totaly false.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 11, 2014, 06:29:21 PM
@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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 11, 2014, 07:03:16 PM
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.a karpen cell is an gaseous electrode concentration cell,not an ionic concentration cell.the nernst equation applies to both classes of concentration cells.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 11, 2014, 07:09:17 PM
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

To demonstrate that there is no logically-valid alternative does not require you to build a physical device.  As I demonstrated earlier, you can not observe the outcomes you require purely empirically. So building something can not make your point. QED.  Moron.

Quote
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.

Nice to see that you're trying to worm your way out of making a useful argument though.

@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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 11, 2014, 07:17:36 PM
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.

I see that the Karpen pile has a fair bit of controversy around it.  I think we will be diving down a big rabbit hole if we attempt discuss how something works when it is disputed whether it works as claimed in the first place.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 11, 2014, 09:02:24 PM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 11, 2014, 09:13:59 PM
@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? 

Unless someone can point to a validation of what it is the Karpen battery supposedly does I don't think it makes a useful example of any particular process.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 11, 2014, 10:46:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 12, 2014, 02:04:10 AM
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. 

By the definitions I am familiar with: whenever outside work is required to drive between two states in one direction, but not in another, the process is not thermodynamically reversible.  Do you know of an electrochemical reaction where there are two distinct states that have no difference in energy?  My understanding is that the no difference in energy is required for thermodynamic irreversibility.

I have not located any verification of Karpen's claims for his cell's performance.  Nor have I found successful replications.  Being unable to determine if a particular thing has happened makes it difficult for me to research what might be responsible for that speculative behavior.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 12, 2014, 08:23:33 PM
@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 difference
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 12, 2014, 09:41:09 PM
@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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 12, 2014, 09:46:30 PM
@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 difference
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 12, 2014, 10:32:32 PM
lol no @mark E.im telling you that it sucks in heat from a single thermal reservoir against resistance in order to attain electrochemical entropy,the only way which is to squeeze,squash,compress,saturate gas from one electrode onto the other.spontaneously.otherwise why do we measure a nernst potential in e.g. a wikipedia oxygen concentration cell in direct proportion to oxygen gas exposure differences between electrodes? Where does that potential for work come from?thin air? I dont think so.the first law of thermodynamics forbids work from nothing and i agree with it.the 2nd law forbids work from something and i dont always agree with it.   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 13, 2014, 04:43:15 AM
Profitis, so that's no on recharging without external energy?  And it is also no on going away from equilibrium without external energy?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 13, 2014, 06:07:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 13, 2014, 07:10:50 AM
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.

The first question was:

Quote
Profitis are you telling me that without consumption of external energy one of these cells will recharge itself? 

I interpret that you are saying that the answer to this is no.  I interpret that you say it is no because of the First Law of Energy. 

The second question was:

Quote
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?

I haven't found anything in your responses that appears to address this second question.  If I missed a response somewhere, then I apologize and ask that you clarify with a yes or no.  Of course I welcome any expansion you may wish to offer beyond the yes or no.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 13, 2014, 02:38:21 PM
 @mark E. 1)no work is needed to recharge it.an expanding gas will suck in heat from the universe as it cools.the battery sucks in heat while the expanding gas(compressed during discharge half of cycle)  recharges it. 2) no its not luck.its a vey precise switching between 2 directions of entropy going on in the battery: discharge= electrochemical entropy dominates.recharge=gaseous expansion/diffusion entropy dominates.2 seperate entropy needs in one system,only one need dominating at a time,depending wether the battery is switched on or off and depending on how much resistance is between its terminals in the external circuitry that we need to work(grey areas inbetween totaly on and totaly off,ohms)does this answer give more clarity for your 2 questions @mark E?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 13, 2014, 03:16:53 PM
Profitis, thanks. 

So the answer to 1) is that energy is needed to recharge.  Given that reversibility requires that a system can move between two states in either direction without expenditure of energy, it would seem then that the requirement for outside energy to move in the recharge direction means that the process is not thermodynamically reversible.   I think that reinforces rather than refutes the idea that the Nernst equation describes irreversible processes.

I ask that you provide further clarification to your answer to 2).  By "switching between 2 directions of entropy ...", do you mean to say that which way the battery goes depends on the external circumstances?

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 13, 2014, 04:22:09 PM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 13, 2014, 05:07:30 PM
@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. 

There are numerous academic references that state that the Nernst equation at least implies irreversibility based on the Gibbs free energy. 

The Karpen battery's claimed properties are disputed.

I would as much as anyone else love to see a break through discovery in energy.  A macro scale violation of any of the laws of energy would certainly qualify.  That's going to take some rock solid evidence to prove. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 13, 2014, 05:16:04 PM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 13, 2014, 05:17:31 PM
@mark E.im going to answer your post just now..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 13, 2014, 05:31:31 PM
@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.

If we stick to one subject to the point of resolution or impasse: Do we agree or disagree on what constitutes thermodynamic reversibility?  I can offer plenty of citations that thermodynamic reversibility requires that a system be able to traverse either way between two states without external energy input.   If you are familiar with a different definition and are relying upon that, then let's get the definition resolved.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 13, 2014, 06:06:08 PM
@mark E you asked me if there was consumption of external energy during recharge phase when a compressed gas is released.what happens when we compress a gas in a cylinder then release it? Heat energy flows in from the environment not so? You didnt ask me if work was required by us to recharge the cell which is what im trying to explain here. We can compress a gas in a cylinder and release it a million cycles over,but not spontaneously.its a pretty reversable process but not spontaneously.if your talking about THERMODYNAMIC reversability then sure i can answer with a yes.the whole karpen cycle is perfectly reversable.100% of heat absorbed is converted to work.the nernst equation says nothing about kelvin statement @mark E but i think the confusion here is about its use to describe deviations from standard reversability of electrode potentials with concentration changes,the foundation of concentration cells.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 13, 2014, 06:30:57 PM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 13, 2014, 06:40:19 PM
@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.

Reversibility or non-reversibility is a an intrinsic quality of a system.  Reversibility is not a property that can be dynamically changed.

Heat sinks are reservoirs.

I do not know of any things that have "2 assymetric (sic) entropy states", including the claimed Quenco device. Quencos have so far never worked. 

I think we are getting further and further from reality here.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 13, 2014, 07:28:12 PM
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.   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 13, 2014, 07:37:15 PM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 13, 2014, 07:43:43 PM
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...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 13, 2014, 07:58:27 PM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 13, 2014, 08:09:49 PM
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???
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 13, 2014, 08:19:19 PM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 13, 2014, 08:39:07 PM
nothing.its an ELECTRODE concentration cell thus its only the relative concentrations of 3-phase gas/electrode/electrolyte contact upon the electrodes that matter.thus the exact proportionality of the measured potential to the relative gas exposures.we can only conclude that theres two dead-stable states in the system: 1) when the two electrodes are in contact and the potential evens out and 2)when the two electrodes just sit there,seperately.thats what i mean by 2 'entropy states'
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 13, 2014, 09:08:20 PM
Profitis, didn't you say that this cell is an oxygen concentration cell?  Doesn't that mean that the oxygen concentration is different in the two half cells?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 13, 2014, 09:15:39 PM
yes mark.if one electrode is under the electrolyte and one slightly submerged then the oxygen concentration is very different, up to .3volts for two identical platinum foils.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 14, 2014, 05:51:14 AM
Then if the two concentrations have a communication path the concentrations each move towards equilibrium.  Why wouldn't they?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 14, 2014, 09:01:08 AM
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????
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 14, 2014, 09:15:30 AM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 14, 2014, 09:27:05 AM
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..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 14, 2014, 09:53:39 AM
the species does continue toward equilibrium after switched off @mark E.in the opposite direction.we disturbed the prior equilibrium by electrical contact!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 14, 2014, 10:33:26 AM
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. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 14, 2014, 12:14:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 14, 2014, 12:46:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 14, 2014, 01:04:40 PM
how @mark E? O2 concentration/unit surface area of electrodes is very very different here.. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 14, 2014, 01:15:41 PM
and why does the nernst potential persist ad infinitum if communion of gas should equalize it?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 14, 2014, 01:46:21 PM
Profitis, does the potential stay put?  It doesn't look like it should.  Do you have a reference that says that it does?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 14, 2014, 02:21:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Marsing on February 14, 2014, 02:43:13 PM
profitis,
sorry, i come from zero.
what is electrolyte consist of ? also what are those rectangle ?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 14, 2014, 02:55:21 PM
no problem @marsing.rectangles are platinum foils at different depths in any electrolyte that doesnt react with platinum e.g. H2SO4 aq. NaOH aq.(NH4)2SO4 aq. The last 2 electrolytes very good becoz they wet electrodes,low surface tension.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 14, 2014, 02:58:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 14, 2014, 03:25:30 PM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 14, 2014, 03:28:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 14, 2014, 03:55:42 PM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 14, 2014, 03:58:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 14, 2014, 04:19:26 PM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 14, 2014, 04:43:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 14, 2014, 05:05:44 PM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 14, 2014, 05:48:24 PM
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 14, 2014, 06:41:36 PM
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.

When you come up with a reference as requested then I can review that reference and see if that changes my understanding.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 14, 2014, 06:46:00 PM
Never. Going. To. Happen. :D
QED. :D
My never threshold for this request is a week.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 14, 2014, 08:12:41 PM
@sarkeizen we are still waiting for you to show that textbooks dont necessitate perpetual batteries QED.you can see ive got mark E in a corner here,thats why he,s demanding a ref for a perpetual motion device.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 14, 2014, 08:18:24 PM
@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 :D 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 14, 2014, 08:28:43 PM
@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 :D
Profitis, 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."
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 14, 2014, 08:35:33 PM
@mark E do you want to make yourself look foolish in front of scientist audiences?if you dont i suggest you attack this: We demand that you seperate the gas compartments of 2 o2 electrodes at different depths shoved in the same electrolyte.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 14, 2014, 08:47:11 PM
@mark E you want me to reference a point that contradicts kelvin statement?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 14, 2014, 08:54:03 PM
@mark E you want me to reference a point that contradicts kelvin statement?
Play by yourself it is.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 14, 2014, 09:00:03 PM
measure it @mark E (-;
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 14, 2014, 10:48:27 PM
@sarkeizen we are still waiting for you to show that textbooks dont necessitate perpetual batteries
ROFL.  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.

You on the other hand have repeatedly stated that "textbooks *do* necessitate the existence of and the ability to create a battery which will run an ipod like device eternally and continually" and we all know why you can't argue that point...because it's likely wrong.   :D :D :D

I've clearly explained the criteria required to make your own point and all you can manage is sillly evasions. :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 14, 2014, 11:25:25 PM
lol @ sarkeizen..i cant support common concentration cells and their expected behaviour?.check how mark E declared that a wikipedian o2 concentration cell potential doesnt exist because of 'communion'then ran away when i told him to un-communion the thing.and check how you personaly wont even address the existance of the wikipedia phenomena.disgusting,but hey,i get the last laugh.what? You ask why? Because replicability trumps everything at the end of the day :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 15, 2014, 12:32:05 AM
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

So to the actual point.  You don't appear capable of supporting the statement which you made and agreed with several times.  Which was that "Textbooks necessitate the existence of and the ability to build a battery which will power an ipod like device eternally and continually".

And the likely reason is that you're wrong about this and the reason you're so evasive is likely because you know you're wrong and what you are spending most of your time doing is hoping you can engage me in a different argument.  Because you've clearly lost this one. :D


If I was talking to a smarter person, they would probably just say: "Ok, you're right but what if...." and start a different point but you can't.
Quote
Because replicability trumps everything at the end of the day :D
Yawn, 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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 15, 2014, 08:37:39 AM
@sarkeizen.nope in a most perverse twist of fate the 'superscientist' mark E has made it ten times easier for me to prove to you and the audience how a wikipedia concentration cell will power your ipod forever.superscientist mark E has acknowledged 1)the existence of a wikipedia platinum equal pressure oxygen gas concentration cell.2)that the wikipedia cell can do work and 3) mr E has imagined that the wikipedia cell has zero resting potential. Ive got you by the balls now @sarkeizen because i just have to prove to you and the audience how mark E was wrong on point 3 because superscientist mark E even agreed,that if number 3 is wrong,that its a kelvin breach already.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 15, 2014, 03:50:07 PM
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.

If so, then you should be able to produce a formal argument stemming from an ordinary textbook cite.

Go ahead...I'm waiting.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 15, 2014, 07:51:28 PM
ok @sarkeizen..lucky for us,the trusted scientist mr E has cleared the path to proving encyclopedias are correct. mark E,s declaration that all wikipedia oxygen concentration cells have zero stable rest potential because its a kelvin violation is totaly false.i say that all wikipedia oxygen concentration cells and all related cells have a totaly stable rest potential...what say you @sarkeizen? I want to interrogate you about the wikipedian device,what say you?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 15, 2014, 11:38:41 PM
Either you can 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.

Or you can not.  If yes, then please begin.  If not, then please admit that you can not (or that you are being irrational).   Since those are the only three options.

As I mentioned before, I think it's pretty clear that you can't and you know that which explains all the lying.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 16, 2014, 01:31:21 AM
mr sarkeizen i repeat: mr E has cleared the path to textbook evidence.as soon as it is revealed that i am correct and he wrong on issue number 3 then you will have all the worlds encyclopedias at your feet,plus textbooks.mr E has openly declared that if theres a stable rest potential on that wikipedia device then its a kelvin breach..check his last msg to me...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 16, 2014, 06:04:35 AM
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.

If you can not do so, and therefore admit that I am right and you were wrong.  Then please signify by not providing a formal logical argument in your next post.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on February 16, 2014, 06:52:35 AM
It looks like this thread will outlive all iPod like devices that could have been powered eternally by those batteries @profitis seems to hide.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 16, 2014, 10:42:34 AM
ok @sarkeizen.lets do that.lets block communion of gas between the 2 electrodes in the wikipedia concentration cell.now you are forced to acknowledge that the levels of electrolyte must change during a complete discharge cycle like in the diagram below.you are also forced to acknowledge the error of mark E when he said that theres no rest potential when gas is in communion without partition.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 17, 2014, 03:42:29 AM
ok @sarkeizen.lets do that.lets block communion of gas between the 2 electrodes in the wikipedia concentration cell.now you are forced to acknowledge
Nothing. 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.

So this is not a formal logical argument. :D :D :D (or at least not a valid one)

But please keep trying, it's fun to watch.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 17, 2014, 07:41:47 AM
rubbish @sarkeizen.textbooks say alot about that pair pants.infact,every single high grade textbook on iron-corrosion has something to say about that pants.including wikipedias article.infact,they all declare that pants such a PERSISTENT nuisance that they,ve even given pet names for it besides its scientific name,namely: the oxygen concentration cell.and its going to be a very persistent pest here on quenco forum,naggling,biting,corroding your confidence in the kelvin law away.mr E has DECLARED: IT MUST HAVE NO RESTING POTENTIAL OTHERWISE ITS A KELVIN BREACH.i am now openly DECLARING: IT MUST BE A KELVIN BREACH BECAUSE IT HAS A RESTING POTENTIAL.only one of us can be right @sarkeizen.either it has a resting potential or it doesnt... Now prove me wrong in that diagramed o2 concentration cell with seperate chambers..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 17, 2014, 04:55:44 PM
textbooks say alot about
What 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.

Which so far you can't....

So far you've provided one cite which was a lie.  What you indicated was not on that page in that textbook.  If we are to believe you own some textbook on elecctrochemestry it seems that you goofed and referenced the wrong text because you're really that stupid.  Other things you've done is pretend that other papers or books actually agree with you but clearly you haven't read them.  For example you thought a dissertation was a textbook.  :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 17, 2014, 06:31:30 PM
excuse me @sarkeizen? i get this feeling that your trying to change the subject.stay on the subject @sarkeizen.stay on the textbook subject of OXYGEN CON-CEN-TRATION CELLS.stay on the subject @sarkeizen.now tell us who is correct: ME OR MR E @sarkeizen.ME OR MR E @sarkeizen.ONE...OR THE OTHER @sarkeizen..ME..OR E..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 17, 2014, 08:44:07 PM
excuse me @sarkeizen? i get this feeling that your trying to change the subject.
That's because you're not very smart.

You seem to be saying that you're making a formal argument.
You made some kind of claim that you seem to say is in ordinary textbooks.
You understand that formal arguments need to *force* the statement.
You can not force a statement about textbooks without a cite.

So far you have only provided a fake cite and an advertisement that you don't know the difference between a textbook and a dissertation.

So again, please keep trying.  It's very entertaining.

 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 17, 2014, 09:34:47 PM
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.   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 17, 2014, 09:38:22 PM
so lets go with the textbook
Please cite.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 17, 2014, 09:46:22 PM
brb
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 17, 2014, 09:59:54 PM
brb
Yawn. I thought this was is every textbook?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 18, 2014, 01:58:18 AM
it is in every textbook mr sarkeizen but the visuals arent: metalcorrosion.blogspot.com/2010/11/differential-aeration-corrosion.html?m=1 .check the visuals here,makes us doubt that the o2 differential potential has any intention of ever stopping its corrosion of this dockside pole.one thing pops to mind after seeing this,if it persists that long on a piece of iron,how long is it gona persist on platinum.pretty permanently for certain. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 18, 2014, 02:01:59 AM
it is in every textbook mr sarkeizen
Good then pick an ordinary textbook and provide a cite...

Whoops....you can't do that...because such cites do not exist. Right? :D :D :D :D

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 18, 2014, 02:10:52 AM
brb
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 18, 2014, 02:11:33 AM
brb
How long does it take to find an irrelevant website and post a link?  I mean, since that's what you're going to do..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant

See, that's so easy.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 18, 2014, 02:16:01 AM
its gota be perfect so we want the best text-cites namsayn @sarkeizen.chill for a while..brb
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 18, 2014, 02:22:03 AM
anything but irrelevent.this shit is going down.this is shit you can measure in your lab like i said namsayn but i cnt exactly prove that from a video-tape.your gona have to trust the nernst equation and also what wikipedia said bowt entropy preferences under title 'concentration cell'
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 18, 2014, 02:34:49 AM
its gota be perfect so we want the best text-cites namsayn @sarkeizen.chill for a while..brb
According to you it's in every textbook everywhere in a form that leaves no room for question....

I think you were kind of lying about that.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 18, 2014, 03:21:18 AM
How hard can this be?  You said it's in every electrochemistry textbook but you can't just go and open one.  Find the thing you are talking about.  Write down the page number and the title of the book.  Then type those things here.

Seriously.  Are you crippled in some way that you haven't discussed?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 18, 2014, 07:00:16 AM
I think that this statement neatly embodies a great deal of the misconception:

Quote
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.   

The statement ignores that absent a steady supply of fresh oxygen, the oxygen reduced into oxide depletes just as the supply of unoxidized iron declines.  Whether the battery runs out of oxygen or iron first, it winds down.  Profitis' concept for a perpetual battery seems to depend on the availability of an infinite supply of feed stock reactants.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 18, 2014, 08:30:39 AM
totaly incorrect @mark E.i said differential aeration corrosion relies on a constant oxygen concentration gradient potential to work,with free communion of gas,in gross contrast to your earlier statement about oxygen concentration potentials with communion.the galvanic action of the iron having nothing to do with the creation of the aeration differiential potential,in fact only emphasising my point of a stable nernst o2 potential at rest regardless of gas communion. You also failed to defend yourself by explaining why 2 totaly seperate pieces platinum sitting at different depths in electrolyte under one atmosphere pressure will not measure equal potential in seperate boxes against a reference electrode but will (according to you) register the same potential under a joined box under one atmosphere.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 18, 2014, 10:47:19 AM
Profitis it you won't be held to your own statements, then you define yourself, and not well at all.

In the meantime, it has been four days already and there is no sign that you will be coming up with that reference that you promised Feb. 14:

Quote
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 18, 2014, 07:41:28 PM
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< 2H2O 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 18, 2014, 07:55:37 PM
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. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 18, 2014, 08:19:08 PM
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..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 18, 2014, 08:52:25 PM
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?

Let me know if you ever find that reference you promised.  I'll give it about three more days before I conclude that you can't find one.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 18, 2014, 09:47:44 PM
youre saying your open to the butler-volmer equation grossly enforcing a open-circuit rest potential in my diagrammed wikipedia oxygen concentration cell with total gas communion @mark E?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 18, 2014, 10:18:45 PM
Getting your claim refuted that I said something I never did doesn't earn you new chances.

Let me know if you ever come up with that reference you promised.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 18, 2014, 10:27:13 PM
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! :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 18, 2014, 11:27:36 PM
You should be more concerned about getting over your disability which prevents you from looking something up in a book and posting it and a specific reference to it online.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 18, 2014, 11:31:27 PM
@sarkeizen,hey,checking this out? :D.ahem..about that cite..its no longer needed :D 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 18, 2014, 11:42:53 PM
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! :D
Profitis you can continue to unilaterally try to take great liberties to which you are not entitled. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 18, 2014, 11:49:38 PM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 19, 2014, 12:23:19 AM
about that cite..its no longer needed :D
Wrong 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".

You can't make that argument without a textbook cite. 

Whenever you get over the crippling problem with citing you can let me know. :D :D :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 19, 2014, 12:43:48 AM
im suddenly cured @sarkeizen.just want to see if mark E can escape the corner then you,l have that cite..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 19, 2014, 12:54:23 AM
im suddenly cured @sarkeizen.just want to see if mark E can escape the corner then you,l have that cite..
Yawn.  Unlikely.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 19, 2014, 12:58:00 AM
@sarkeizen..i agree :D...but give him a chance..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 19, 2014, 01:00:18 AM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 19, 2014, 01:12:18 AM
i know your not biting @mark E..your already in the trap ..try to get out of it if you can..(-:
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 19, 2014, 01:31:15 AM
Profitis you like to say lots of things.  If you want to try and make a point then deliver on that reference you promised.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 19, 2014, 01:54:53 AM
I mean it's unlikely that you profitis will cite any ordinary textbook to make the aforementioned point.  After all, you don't have a leg to stand on in this discussion.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 19, 2014, 10:52:58 AM
@sarkeizen..my pants diagram is a common diffusion-compensation cell matey-mate,ie.a concentration cell that gets its voltage from an over/underpotential difference like any concentration cell: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Butler_volmer_equation_graph_nl.png .the differences in equilibrium gaseous diffusion rates creating a nasty voltage dip(or hike) against the standard respective gas electrode potentials.thus we have a system that has an totaly stable EQUILIBRIUM POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE much like a diode contact potential difference,except that we can put this potential difference to work.so we have 2 totaly stable entropy states in one system,one toward flattening a potential difference and one toward creating a potential difference,in breach of kelvin laws.this is why mark E is against an stable equilibrium potential difference here.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 19, 2014, 01:08:11 PM
@sarkeizen..my pants diagram is
a) Not something which can be found in an ordinary textbook and
b) apparently is the absolute and only way to make your point. 

As long as both of those premises are true you have lost the argument.

Chin up.  Maybe you'll get smarter. :D  Sometimes that happens after high-school. :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 19, 2014, 09:02:44 PM
@sarkeizen the only way to bring my point to the table? profitis statement: 'all equi-pressure gaseous electrode overpotential differential cells violate kelvin rule'.nobody can disprove this statement in practice or theory.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 19, 2014, 09:53:25 PM
Statements are a dime a dozen.  If you were to actually prove that such cells violate the Second Law of Energy, then you would become famous.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 19, 2014, 10:39:13 PM
@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.

So far, you can't make your point using an ordinary textbook.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 19, 2014, 11:32:13 PM
@mark E..if you can disprove my statement then no.if you cant...and i know you cant then...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 19, 2014, 11:38:54 PM
@sarkeizen..all equi-pressure gaseous electrode overpotential differential cells necessitate a kelvin bust..sound better now?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 20, 2014, 12:55:56 AM
@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?

If not, then I win.  If you are then please provide an ordinary textbook cite. :D :D

Let me guess...you will stall again.   Then draw a diagram.  Then demand I prove something irrelevant.  Then claim you don't need a cite.

Does this ever work with people you know?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 20, 2014, 03:26:47 AM
@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.

We are coming up on a week here and there is no sign that you will be coming up with that reference you promised.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 20, 2014, 08:43:48 AM
@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..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 20, 2014, 08:46:48 AM
@sarkeizen and just how does the profitis statement not grossly enforce an kelvin breach, by the book?we are waiting for your explanation because you are implying that the profitis statement does not totaly support my ipod statement.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 20, 2014, 01:34:36 PM
@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 seem to be intelligent.  Why do you intentionally play yourself as a fool?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 20, 2014, 02:08:05 PM
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.

Hey, you proved me right.  You went straight to "irrelevant statement" phase of your gibberish.  Next you will confuse asserting with demonstrating or jump back to demanding to prove some other irrelevant statement.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 20, 2014, 04:55:30 PM
@mark E why dont you just take my twisted textbook statement and just show us how crappy it is?i mean it should be easy for you to do right? counter-attack the profitis statement @mark E instead of standing there and demanding a video of it.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 20, 2014, 05:18:28 PM
you,re saying i failed to show how textbooks help to power your ipod forever by declaring my textbook words null and void sarkeizen? Laughable.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 20, 2014, 05:23:39 PM
Profitis, as Sarkeizen predicted, you are now on cue demanding that others disprove your extraordinary claims.  You must get some sort of reward out of portraying yourself as a fool.  It is difficult for me to imagine what that reward is.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 20, 2014, 05:40:30 PM
lol @ mark E.but if i were to plonk a working device on your desk you would be convinced, after a while right?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 20, 2014, 05:45:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 20, 2014, 06:08:46 PM
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 :-)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 20, 2014, 06:14:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 20, 2014, 06:26:23 PM
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 20, 2014, 06:29:34 PM
For $35.95, I'll stick to imagination!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 20, 2014, 07:42:47 PM
 lol.your desk isnt the only desk waiting for a everlasting ipod @mark E but i might do the honours.where is your desk btw? Anywhere near mrs ainslies desk? (-:   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 20, 2014, 07:53:37 PM
Profitis, Ms. Ainslie does not work in a laboratory.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 20, 2014, 07:59:16 PM
For $35.95, I'll stick to imagination!
http://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/trolls-just-want-to-have-fun.pdf
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 20, 2014, 08:09:47 PM
Thanks!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 20, 2014, 08:20:44 PM
so you have a fully-equiped lab and you didnt..maybe..perhaps..try building anything i mentioned here @mark E?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 20, 2014, 08:30:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 20, 2014, 08:35:13 PM
lol @mark E..full of riddles eh..just like mark dansie..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 20, 2014, 11:27:03 PM
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 21, 2014, 12:31:38 AM
dont start shit now @sarkeizen..this thread ended nice and peacefully on a note that made every single word you uttered look null and void.. You cant rectify it..your too late..go spend some time with the family..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 21, 2014, 12:39:46 AM
dont start shit now
What 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


If you can't deal.  Then argue your point instead of evading all the time. :D :D :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 21, 2014, 01:07:13 AM
ive got half a lab with no gas cylinders lying around and i managed just fine @sarkeizen..it makes me scared to think what corporates can do with this shit.you have to dislocate THE monstrous profitis statement in order to have any hope of salvation here.THE profitis statement derived from higher textbooks.its useless to tell me that it must be argued because it embodies the argument..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 21, 2014, 01:18:05 AM
ive got half a lab with no gas cylinders lying around and i managed just fine
Then you didn't understand what I wrote.  I said it would be a waste of money.  That still stands. :D
Quote
THE profitis statement derived from made-up textbooks
Sadly 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
Quote
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 21, 2014, 02:16:37 AM
 no i doubt that they would consider my statement a waste of money because its derived entirely from textbooks and those physicists are pretty jacked up so they know their shit.i mean if i told them something like 'hey guys,im going to christen this thing a hydrino' or 'hey guys this thing sucks aether' then yes they'd probably just laugh but im not doing that.why dont you consult a textbook and see,just see if you can find fault with my statement @sarkeizen and come tell us about it? My original statement can be integrated into my latest one so wheres the problem? It,l be too tedious for me to cite and splain every single cause-and-effect up the chain to a kelvin breach with you complaining about space-bars and grammar and other irrelevencies along the way and i know you will.so im starting at the top of the pyramid and now you must do the investigation down the effect to cause base.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 21, 2014, 03:51:44 AM
Quote from: A monumental asshole
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 21, 2014, 11:08:30 AM
@sarkeizen you have to dismantle and destroy my statement number 2 before you can say loserboy loserboy
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 21, 2014, 01:05:57 PM
@sarkeizen you have to
Show that the true profitis statement is unproven and that profitis can not support it.  Done. :D :D :D :D

Thanks for conceding my point loserboy. :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 21, 2014, 01:46:59 PM
@sarkeizen: 'show that the new profitis statement is unproven and that the true profitis statement isnt supported by it' undone :D you concede my whole argument loserboy :D:D:D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 21, 2014, 03:13:48 PM
@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.

If the fake profitis statement can be demonstrated with a formal logical argument reaching an identical conclusion to the True Profits Statement and ordinary textbooks then please show me where this was done.  However we all know it has not been done which means either...

The fake profitis statement is:
a) Not equivalent to the True Profitis Statement
b) and/or Unproven and unsupported.

QED Loser. :D :D :D :D  Your ability to understand logic is about as bad as Philips
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 21, 2014, 03:42:25 PM
Well, it has been a week and Profitis has not found a reference.  I think that a week was plenty of time for Profitis to find a reference to support his seemingly unusual idea.  I therefore conclude that Profitis couldn't find such a reference and his unusual idea is flawed.

Quote
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 21, 2014, 06:38:29 PM
lol @sarkeizen.check your feeble attempts to derail the monster profitis statement! Lololololol! Giggle :D. While we,re waiting for you to disrupt that awesomely powerful iron-clad statement i think its time to move onto the next phase of our discussion: the ramifications that a text-book-strangled kelvin law will now have on other areas of science eg.electromagnetism,magnetism,electrostatics,semiconductors,quantum physics,steady-state-non-equilibrium physics,nuclear physics etc.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 21, 2014, 06:51:57 PM
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 :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 21, 2014, 07:01:11 PM
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 :D
Do you really think you are going to get somewhere with behavior like that?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 21, 2014, 07:08:44 PM
@mark E..unless you destroy my statement..yes (-: 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 21, 2014, 07:39:21 PM
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.

I get that your ability to understand logic is at the Philip Hardcastle level but try to think...see if you can reach the high-school level. :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 21, 2014, 07:41:09 PM
@mark E..unless you destroy my statement..yes (-:
Then you are badly mistaken.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 21, 2014, 07:50:20 PM
rubbish @sarkeizen.the latest profitis statement is so overpowering that you cant a)de-stabilize it b)dismantle it or c)bring a scientist onboard to quash it.it annihilates anything standing inbetween profitis statement 1 and a kelvin breach and to the contrary,makes the hardcastle proposal look a whole lot shinier and sparkly by default.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 21, 2014, 08:03:45 PM
rubbish @sarkeizen.the latest profitis statement is
i) Demonstrated to be not equivalent to the True Profits Statement or
ii) Demonstrated to be unsupported and/or unproven.

See if you assert i) is not true (that they are equivalent) then ii) automatically is true and if you assert ii) is not true (that it is supported) then i) is automatically not true.

It's all up there.  You can read it for yourself.  Just telling yourself over and over again that you think you are right doesn't actually make you any less wrong.

Like I said try moving up from the Philip Hardcastle School of Logic to something actually taught somewhere. :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 21, 2014, 09:31:11 PM
yawn @mark E.my statement still stands.getting taller by the second..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 21, 2014, 09:36:49 PM
lol @sarkeizen.who are you trying to kid?yourself? Now go back to my last statement and read it, carefully this time ne?wink-wink ;-)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 21, 2014, 10:19:42 PM
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.

i) The True profitis statement must be supported purely by formal argument and cites from ordinary textbooks.
ii) The True profitis statement has not been supported by formal argument and cites from ordinary textbooks.
iii) Any statement claiming to be equivalent to the True profitis statement must by i) contain a formal argument and cites from ordinary textbooks and nothing else.
iv) Any statement claiming to be equivalent to the True profitis statement must by ii) be unsupported.

Sorry, logic wins, profitis the absolute moron...loses. :D :D :D

But please feel free to continue pretending as if you have some kind of argument (which of course you won't disclose)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 21, 2014, 10:38:03 PM
yawn @mark E.my statement still stands.getting taller by the second..
Why do you choose to exemplify Dunning-Kruger in action?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 21, 2014, 10:42:39 PM
yawn @sarkeizen you and mark E are boring.look,either you guys attack my last vehemently destructive statement headon or put a raincheck on repetitive garbage that realy doesnt even scratch my statement one iota.now inject some useful attacks into this conversation because im beginning to agree with our old friend mr tim123,its getting boring :D 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 21, 2014, 10:53:52 PM
who,s kruger @mark E?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 21, 2014, 10:55:33 PM
Have you ever been to a supermarket?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 21, 2014, 11:04:59 PM
that doesnt help us @mark E.im telling you about concentration cells and you want to give a psychology lecture? 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 21, 2014, 11:37:31 PM
attack my last vehemently destructive statement
Either it's equivalent to the True profitis statement or it is not. 

If it is, then it's powerless because it's unsupported.
If it isn't, it's irrelevant.

Useless or irrelevant.  Let me know which one you pick.

: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 :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 :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 :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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 21, 2014, 11:56:50 PM
you clearly dont understand anything ive said @sarkeizen. my 1st statement is a consequence of my last statement which is self-supported.self-supported.you can only destroy my last statement by showing how 2 different overpotential gas electrodes cant thermodynamicly re-cycle spontaneously.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 22, 2014, 02:03:13 AM
you clearly dont understand anything ive said
I understand what you're saying.  You're simply incorrect.

So we will represent the True Profitis Statement as T and any other statement as M (for moronic)
So what do we know about T?  It's true IFF (if and only if) a formal argument is presented and at least one cite from an ordinary textbook.  We will call this lemma (1).
Quote
my 1st statement is a consequence of my last statement
In 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.
Quote
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.

So you are in contradiction.  The statements M is true and M->T are mutually exclusive the way you have defined them.

You are simply wrong here.  I wonder why you find that so hard to believe?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 22, 2014, 07:14:53 AM
let me simplify your formula there @sarkeizen,,if M is my anti-kelvin statement at ambient temperature youre screwed,unless, 1)you show in theory how it doesnt gel for the schoolkids sake.2)you show in physicality how it doesnt gel for the schoolkids sake.the schoolkids are not impressed with you right now because i can easily demo the profitis statement in action with nothing more than a pair platinum pants,a glass of water and a meter while you cant do jackshit! Who are people going to believe @sarkeizen? Me or you.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on February 22, 2014, 10:33:36 AM
Hi All,


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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 22, 2014, 04:00:30 PM
let me simplify your formula there @sarkeizen,,if M is my anti-kelvin statement
M (for moronic) can be any statement.
T the True Profitis Statement can only be demonstrated with ordinary textbook quotes and logic.  These were YOUR words loser boy.
M can not imply T unless it complies to the same rules for proving T true. 

Like I said, Philip logic is one of the lowest forms of logic.  Please read a book. :D :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 22, 2014, 05:14:23 PM
Hi All,


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
Mr. Hardcastle have you conducted any experiments to confirm your current ideas?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 22, 2014, 06:45:56 PM
Both T and M can be demonstrated with a pair platinum pants and some water @sarkeizen.you are arguing against a live demo infront college kids.the profitis statement will now enter the next phase and burn into totalitarian rule over kelvin statement unless you can stop it.tick-tock tick-tock..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 22, 2014, 09:37:27 PM
Both T and M can be demonstrated
Incorrect.  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.

Again, you are simply wrong and are unable to believe that.  Interesting. :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 22, 2014, 10:00:48 PM
yawn @sarkeizen im sitting nice and lazy in my hammock here waiting for you to put the slightest dent on my latest terrorising statement,do me a fave and refill my glass esprit while you paw through the textbooks?:D 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 23, 2014, 04:39:45 AM
er
do me a fave and refill my glass esprit while you paw through the textbooks?:D
So in other words you can't support the True Profitis Statement.  Which means you lost. :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 23, 2014, 09:03:15 AM
your criteria isnt the only way to support textbooks @ sarkeizen.read my last statement carefully word for word and you,l see its disgustingly textbooktised.so much so that you have to ask yourself,'hey,why was i ever against the idea of 2 superimposed entropy states in one system?why was i? Why was i?dang!' Equilibrium potential differences can be evil.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 23, 2014, 09:52:27 PM
your criteria isnt the only way to support textbooks
Nothing 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.
Quote
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 23, 2014, 11:44:00 PM
my statement @sarkeizen.the last one..tap-tap-tap(fingers tapping the desk) :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 23, 2014, 11:57:56 PM
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.

Either pretty much means I win.  Think about it for a change....
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 24, 2014, 12:40:10 AM
not until you destroy my statement @sarkeizen..the last one..clip..clip..clip(cutting my toenails now)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 24, 2014, 01:19:28 AM
not until you destroy my statement @sarkeizen..the last one
As 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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 24, 2014, 01:56:51 AM
it is highly relevant and exceptionaly cogent in line with textbooks @sarkeizen.i cannot come to you with a textbook argument for a 2nd law breach using textbook words that can be destroyed instantly e.g. 'a oxygen concentration cell is a kelvin bust' (you would just show me a differential pressure o2 cell) but i can come to you with standard formality words:' a equi-pressure oxygen gas electrode overpotential differential cell necessitates an kelvin bust',because its impossible for it to not necessitate a kelvin bust.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 24, 2014, 03:11:15 AM
it is highly relevant
Not to the True Profitis Statement which is what is being discussed or if it is then there's no cogent argument for it.
 
Quote
i cannot come to you with a textbook argument for a 2nd law breach using textbook words
Sounds 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.

Then say so, plainly.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 24, 2014, 11:10:08 PM
@sarkeizen 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.you can argue szilard or fenyman or loschmidt or trupp through the whole year but it is impossible to not breach kelvin laws with that last statement of mine.it will go down in history as the definitive kelvin-quencher(at least on this website).be glad @sarkeizen,you were part of this golden moment.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 25, 2014, 01:26:05 AM
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.

You said that some fake profitis statement could not be validated with ordinary textbooks...I can quote where you said this if you like.  Since ordinary textbooks are required by the True Profitis Statement for validation any statement which can not be validated by ordinary textbooks is, by your own words excluded from being able of validating the True Profitis Statement

Let me know when you figure it out.  Loser.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 25, 2014, 06:11:09 AM
the ipod statement can be validated by working your way down the last profitis statement,which you can check out using just about any higher grade college physical chemistry textbook @sarkeizen so your above statement is false,null,and void until you prove the last profitis statement to be false,null,and void which you cannot possibly do.if i use standard formality textbook words to declare a kelvin breach you better be prepared to show me wrong or else confess defeat.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 25, 2014, 06:29:17 AM
the ipod statement can be validated by working your way down the last profitis statement
Sorry, 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 25, 2014, 06:50:02 AM
@sarkeizen.apologies.you have laid down exactly zero formal textbook proof whatsoever to combat the overbearing presence of the..last profitis statement..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 25, 2014, 07:46:48 AM
@sarkeizen.apologies.you have laid down exactly zero formal textbook proof
My 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.

If you don't get it, just say so and I'll explain.   Loser.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 25, 2014, 07:55:26 AM
we,re not interested in 'logical' proof @sarkeizen.we just want you to topple my 2nd statement.if you cant topple my 2nd statement then sorry,no luck on toppling my 1st statement by default.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 25, 2014, 08:05:49 AM
we,re not interested in 'logical' proof
Yes, 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. 

Still, logic says that you have not yet provided anything to refute.  Only words irrelevant to the True Profitis Statement and words that are equally unsupported. :D :D :D

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 25, 2014, 08:17:17 AM
no mr sarkeizen..you are to be badly,badly dissapointed if you think that my 2nd statement is irrelevant to my 1st statement.quit being lazy and show us that my textbook-worded statement is null and void then only can you prove scientificly to us that my casual-worded statement is null and void..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 25, 2014, 03:02:38 PM
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:
The True Profitis Statement is true IFF a formal logical argument reaches the conclusion "ordinary textbooks necessitate the existence of and ability to build a battery which would power an ipod-like device eternally and continually".  Clearly this requires ordinary textbooks.

By virtue of this, :D :D  any and every other statement :D :D you wish to make is either:

i) Not equivalent to the  True Profitis Statement (and therefore irrelevant) or...
ii) Unsupported (because the True Profitis Statement is unsupported because there is no ordinary textbook cite)

If you have a problem with this, then again I'm more than happy to give you a tutorial and walk you through it.  It might be good for you.  You probably think you have some valid objection but if you were to discuss it you would see that you are just very, very, very stupid. :D :D :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on February 25, 2014, 04:37:46 PM
Very persistent, though... that's got to count for something, right?
 ::)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 25, 2014, 06:33:43 PM
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. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 25, 2014, 08:39:52 PM
lol talk shit @sarkeizen.you can prove and have proved exactly zilch thusfar.even the karpen blueprint fits perfectly into my textbook statement and thus into textbooks lol.you dont think gold and platinum have 2 different oxygen overpotentials?you have to show us how their equilibrium over/underpotentials dont fuck the 2nd law straight in the ass by necessary cycling of gas.how the fuck are you going to do this?? A very difficult task lies ahead for you my friend because if you dont collapse my statement now then people will start to believe my ipod lingotrash..and we dont want that..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 25, 2014, 09:16:35 PM
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

Quote
people will start to believe my
Sorry, 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

Reason can be an end unto itself and I'm content with having bested you.  No matter how much you're in denial about it. :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 25, 2014, 09:53:05 PM
lol and you contradict yourself too! You say it doesnt matter what people believe then immediately after say that accepting my statement would be irrational?make up your mind @sarkeizen.Your lemmas force zip until you play the ball where it lies,and its jumped here> onto the last profitis statement..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 26, 2014, 12:59:38 AM
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
Quote
Your lemmas force zip
Can you show me a problem in the proof?  Nope.   :D :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 26, 2014, 02:17:41 AM
yes i can show you how you,re on a lone war against 3 fronts mr sarkeizen 1)a nernstian front coming from the south.2)a gaseous spillover front from the east.3)a polarization front from the west. Time for you to go awol dont you think mr sarkeizen.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 26, 2014, 02:44:32 AM
Can you show me a problem with my proof?  Nope. :D :D :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Hope on February 26, 2014, 10:54:57 AM
Stop it, both of you are self servicing and this topic is not your personal battlefield.  Are you both just the same person trolling here?   Nothing to see of interest to you both,  move along.   We here are interested in the topic not your dribble.   


Find a live chat room and discuss it or decide to drop it.


We here are not interested in digressing the topic into non productive banter.   Moderator please take control of this situation and apply the cure.   Thank you.


Richard Williams
"Hope"
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on February 26, 2014, 12:08:30 PM
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on February 26, 2014, 12:55:57 PM
So the whole Stanford NanoFab Lab thing didn't work out so well, did it. They are still laughing about you there, you know.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 26, 2014, 01:41:56 PM
@hope,a 2nd law destruction isnt ontopic? Sure we can take the argument to another place and make space for the ghostly activity here,but what for?this thread was dead for months before lumen lit the fire and sarkeizen fueled it.no-one is stopping you from having a say.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 26, 2014, 01:57:39 PM
@sarkeizen yes i can..with the following statement derived from textbooks:'all equi-pressure same-gaseous electrode over/underpotential differential galvanic cells necessitate violation of kelvin-law'..you must collapse this profitis statement to be able to prove that textbooks cannot help you build a perpetuum mobilum.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 26, 2014, 02:10:14 PM
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.

Quote
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.

That said, I don't mind dropping this if to bothers you so much.  After all Profitis conceded my point a few days ago.

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

Cheers. :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 26, 2014, 02:10:47 PM
@phil hardcastle..im going to keep any answers to sarkeizen short and sharp from now on to avoid boring anyone and to taper off out of here.my work is done here, successfully.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 26, 2014, 02:29:22 PM
exceptionaly formal.totaly logic.from textbooks.my statement @sarkeizen,collapse it, then you win.you wont because you cant :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on February 26, 2014, 04:29:55 PM
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
Mr. Hardcastle the ideas on your web site remain untested.  Have you considered that unless tests validate your ideas that you may be wrong?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on February 26, 2014, 07:49:45 PM
(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

Aww... I'm crushed.  :-\ :'( :'( :(

 ;) 8)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on February 26, 2014, 09:12:40 PM
So the whole Stanford NanoFab Lab thing didn't work out so well, did it. They are still laughing about you there, you know.


It's statements like that TK that make me wonder why you REALLY are here.   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 26, 2014, 09:36:47 PM
Aww... I'm crushed.  :-\ :'( :'( :(

 ;) 8)
Edited the post...added "almost". ;)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 26, 2014, 09:49:02 PM
:D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on February 27, 2014, 01:34:11 PM
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

Just read "Sebby Ice Theory". Mr. Hardcastle forgets that the electric field is a conservative field. The high negative voltage bias at the emitter means high electric field. In order to harvest energy from thermionic emission, electrons just ejected by the emitter (and pushed by the high negative voltage bias) should return to the emitter (no closed circuit - no power output), thus they have to overcome in the wrong direction the same potential they were pushed by. Nothing will happen, as usual...
 
The present message is my share of wasted time.


 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on February 27, 2014, 01:45:47 PM
@hollander,


I will break my rule re this thread and respond to your so called considered expert comment.


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.


You have posted a number of negative comments before that had no validity, it seems you have a wish to pretend to be an expert.


Phil
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hollander on February 27, 2014, 02:36:22 PM
@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 is called Field Emission. I was talking of something else: electric field is a conservative field. The emitted electrons should close the loop and (spontaneously) return to the emitter for your device to have a chance to work (produce current an power).

Well, guess what? On the way back to the emitter they have to overcome the very same barrier they left after the emission.

CONSERVATIVE FIELD.

Bye

PS. By the way, I am an expert. But yes, I cannot have the honor to share you curriculum of (quenco) failures   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on February 27, 2014, 03:12:51 PM

It's statements like that TK that make me wonder why you REALLY are here.

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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on February 27, 2014, 04:43:46 PM
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

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on February 27, 2014, 07:33:13 PM
lol @sarkeizen.building things is a bias? Its your fault you dont own a pair platinum pants.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Hope on March 04, 2014, 06:11:35 PM
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.






Agreed,  revision and increasing circuits does not necessarily refine a device.   Nature usually is our best example of how to do some process in the most efficient way.  Suggest you protype the device Phil and work through the revisions until theory becomes proof.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Hope on March 04, 2014, 06:18:24 PM

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?


And you have many efforts to your credit, we appreciate your earnest work.


Let's remember that others are not walking in our shoes and do not have the knowledge we have gained with years of this desire driving us to the present education.   Thank you for coming to this topic and sharing your views TK.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Hope on March 04, 2014, 06:20:29 PM
And Phil that link you are sharing is a closed website.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: e2matrix on March 04, 2014, 06:42:28 PM

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?


No,  I'm here for several reasons but Lulz is not one of them.   One is to share bits of knowledge I have with others.   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.   I don't think I need to throw out all the usual quotes about the Wright brothers and Einstein and others we have all heard in that regard.   Another I will admit is the hope that sometime a good free energy device will come along with good directions and a parts list on how to build it.   I'm a good builder but not the best on theory in some areas.   I also see some ego's get in the way of progress at times and I try to help out with smoothing things out in that arena as I have a lot of experience and training in that area as well as having the opportunity of learning in person from some of the world's best.    I try to keep the forums I visit a positive atmosphere since that is the only way to have real growth and learning and hopefully the success of a free energy device someday that nearly everyone can build.   


I value your knowledgeable input at times but not the insults to others.   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on March 06, 2014, 05:43:14 PM
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.

How about, instead that ideas be explored to a degree proportional to the likelihood of their success otherwise we stop caring.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on March 06, 2014, 05:53:36 PM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Farmhand on March 09, 2014, 11:12:53 AM
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?

Oh but TK,  don't Skeptics have less powers than Naysayers, Skeptics are benign beings whereas Naysayers are malevolent Skeptics and more destructive. At least that is the impression I get.  ::)

It would seem that some do consider all Skeptics to have unnatural powers.

..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: SeaMonkey on March 10, 2014, 03:25:53 AM
Quote from: FarmHand
It would seem that some do consider all Skeptics to have unnatural powers.

Aye, unnatural powers for a fact! ;)

The skeptics that matter do seem though to have
quite a lot more experience and have acquired
considerably more knowledge/wisdom than the
typical experimenter. 8)

Overunity or the Search for Free Energy in many
ways is like a Religion where the Noobs have the
highest level of Faith that it (Free Energy) is a reality. ::)

Until, that is, they in due time become Skeptics
themselves after having "paid their dues" in
trial, error and disappointment;  not to mention
the sizable financial outlay. :o

The "been there done that" Skeptic in most cases
didn't ever want to become one at all... :'(
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on April 07, 2014, 04:29:47 AM
The quentron.com website is down.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: txt on April 16, 2014, 02:35:57 AM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on April 16, 2014, 02:42:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: txt on April 16, 2014, 02:52:56 AM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on April 16, 2014, 02:55:41 AM

AFAIK, Mr. Hardcastle burned his own money on this. He's not a fraud like Wayne Travis.
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on April 16, 2014, 02:57:00 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on April 16, 2014, 02:58:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: txt on April 16, 2014, 03:01:55 AM
OK, thanks for the info MarkE and Orbut 3000, I stand corrected. In that case, if he did not defraud anyone, I wish him all best.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on April 24, 2014, 05:14:46 AM

I popped in to read this thread and was astounded at the idle talk.

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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on April 24, 2014, 06:23:45 AM
I popped in to read this thread and was astounded at the idle talk.

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
Mr. Hardcastle, I thought that I had read somewhere that you were a geologist.  I stand corrected.

I am afraid that Pandora's Box cannot be resealed.  You have made a number of extraordinary claims that you have not substantiated.  Once you made those claims public, you gave the public the right to review them.  Ideas that are sound hold up to scrutiny.  Ideas that are flawed don't hold up to scrutiny.  It's not somebody else's fault that various of your ideas haven't panned out.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on April 24, 2014, 06:35:15 AM
@MarkE,


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.


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.


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?


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.


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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on April 24, 2014, 08:34:24 AM
@MarkE,


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.
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.
Quote


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.
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.
Quote


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?
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.
Quote


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.
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.
Quote


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.
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. 

If you don't know what the 'E' in MarkE is for or my email address then you have not been paying attention.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: fritz on April 24, 2014, 10:19:35 AM
Well, Overunity.com is a pure peer-reviewed science blog with more than half dozen nobel prize winners claiming the "truth" ?
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 ?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on April 24, 2014, 02:45:26 PM
Well, Overunity.com is a pure peer-reviewed science blog with more than half dozen nobel prize winners claiming the "truth" ?
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 ?
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 13, 2014, 03:35:24 AM
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"
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
(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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on May 13, 2014, 05:44:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 14, 2014, 04:15:18 AM
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/)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on May 14, 2014, 04:35:37 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 14, 2014, 04:52:54 AM
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.

For me I'm a mathematician and I've read over a fair bit of the work regarding information theory and Maxwell Demon-like devices and I'd say that there's little reason to believe that one could construct such a device.  Philips handwaving argument was that this is a *quantum* effect and so is immune to objections.  My counter is that such a device could be turned into a kind of computation device one that could break some of the known limitations on quantum computing devices.  So by extension it's "quantumness" can't solve the inability to create a MD device.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on May 14, 2014, 12:56:58 PM
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.

Basically, he wired up a vacuum tube and stuck the tube in an oven hot enough to almost melt the glass.  He brought the wires out of the oven to a micro ammeter movement at room temperature.  The meter registered current that went up as he raised the temperature in the oven.   He said his experiment proved a 2nd Law violation.   I don't see where he can rationally draw such an audacious conclusion.  Mr. Hardcastle posted not so long ago that he has other scientists who believe him.  I haven't seen any such persons publish such an opinion.  Somehow this vacuum tube thing was his proof of concept for the thin film layer project that flopped.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 14, 2014, 06:07:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 14, 2014, 10:21:23 PM
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".
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on May 15, 2014, 03:00:33 AM

The link below leads to more information and resources about PJH's previous inventions - written up by a cold fusion enthusiast.

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg71402.html (https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg71402.html)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on May 15, 2014, 07:37:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on May 15, 2014, 07:39:07 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on May 15, 2014, 07:43:59 AM
The link below leads to more information and resources about PJH's previous inventions - written up by a cold fusion enthusiast.

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg71402.html (https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg71402.html)
That sounds close to what I know about the history.  I didn't know about him asking PESN to pull down articles.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 15, 2014, 07:52:05 AM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 15, 2014, 08:03:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on May 15, 2014, 12:31:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 15, 2014, 02:50:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: memoryman on May 15, 2014, 03:23:49 PM
I had dozens of email exchanges with Philip two years ago. His engineering skills were limited.
The promised power density of 10kW/cm^3 was high by orders of magnitude (supplying this heat energy and removing the electrical energy is highly problematic).
I also introduced him to 2 wealthy, powerful people, who were treated very rudely by Philip (he did apologise to me).
Have not had any more contact with him.
It is my opinion that LoT2 can and has been broken; to make a commercial product may not be possible.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on May 15, 2014, 05:28:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 15, 2014, 09:22:32 PM
Memoryman you say that you believe that 2lot has been busted....so why do you say that a commercial product may not be possible?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 15, 2014, 09:37:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: memoryman on May 15, 2014, 10:13:15 PM
profitis, just because something is possible in theory, does not mean it's practical or desirable, especially when working on a nanoscale.
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on May 15, 2014, 10:21:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 16, 2014, 12:39:32 AM
If a 2lot violation can be microscopic,what's preventing one from being macroscopic @memoryman.nothing.dr sheehan isn't the only demonologist around town so to draw a final conclusion from one man would be premature wouldn't you say?I doubt that he truly believes that no practical device can be made because I doubt that the people that pay him would want to set alarm bells off in public.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 16, 2014, 12:49:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: memoryman on May 16, 2014, 04:27:57 AM
Profitis, I did not say that it could not be done: I said it MAY not be able to be made into a viable product.
Not all things can be scaled up or down due to limits of materials, forces. loads etc.
We can make large mirrors for telescopes, but are close to the upper limit for now.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on May 16, 2014, 04:27:59 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 16, 2014, 12:43:33 PM
A mirror takes the form of mirror thus is limited to a mirrors needs @memoryman.a 2lot violation can creep up in any one of a number of systems(magetic,electromagnetic,electrochemical etc)thus you cannot with any certainty even use the words 'may not.'you'd be surprized what research is going on behind corporate scenes nowdays.if you never saw a 2lot violator on the shelves it is probably because it has been shelved(corporate competition leverage).if you look carefully you,l see more subtle forms of 2lot violators creeping on2 the markets eg certain solar systems,coolers,water heaters etc that are way more efficient than they're supposed to be.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 16, 2014, 12:50:49 PM
@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.a practical scientific statement is not proof.its the inability of anyone to counter it that pushes it over the proof line.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on May 16, 2014, 01:12:37 PM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 16, 2014, 01:22:22 PM
Its their choice @markE.if they don't take my statement up for the challenge I gues they'l never know,or want to know.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: memoryman on May 16, 2014, 02:21:40 PM
profitis, I don't subscribe to the large scale suppression mentality. I would do some active exploration in the LoT2 violations, if I had the resources. Nanotech requires very expensive equipment.
As to others proving an extraordinary claim, I am on MarkE's side.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 16, 2014, 11:12:18 PM
Neither do I fully subscribe to the suppression mentality memoryman.corporates will shelve for a number of reasons beside politics.politics are not a problem unless one becomes too loud or unless one is on a mission to 'break the rules for the sake of breaking the rules'.stupidity.markE wants to see working devices in action,I don't blame him most people do even I do.if he has a lab he can check my claims out anytime he wants to.the only reason I made my claims here is so that I can take credit for for my claims before someone else does.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 17, 2014, 04:15:28 AM
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 17, 2014, 04:34:56 AM
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.

In the same breath though he says that "If a law could be proved then it would be a theorem".   Complexity theory and information theory approaches 2LOT in precisely that way.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 17, 2014, 10:01:02 AM
So then what kind of evidence would satisfy you that demons exist @sarkeizen. What are your standards for evidence
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 17, 2014, 04:24:33 PM
So then what kind of evidence would satisfy you that demons exist @sarkeizen. What are your standards for evidence
One 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
Quote from: Stupid person
@sarkeizen.i cannot come to you with a textbook argument for a 2nd law breach using textbook words
So I guess that's out. Moron. :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 18, 2014, 01:17:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Farmhand on May 18, 2014, 10:17:49 PM
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.

To demonstrate a 2nd LoT violation isn't it necessary to define the boundaries of the closed system ?

..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 19, 2014, 12:14:19 AM
No farmhand.it is only necessary to define and demonstrate an assymetrical entropy state.the physical demonstration must give enough power to rule out 'natural' resources completely eg sunlight,vibration,heat gradient,radio waves etc
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 19, 2014, 05:25:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 19, 2014, 09:44:31 AM
Its not stupid if you look into it @sarkeizen.for example the suspected 2lot violator,the original karpen cell blueprint fits the bill of that statement very cosily i.e.gold and platinum with their different oxygen potentials giving current and power in a predictably repetitive manner.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 19, 2014, 07:49:18 PM
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.
Clearly any test which does not shift the likelihood is stupid.   Sorry that's just the way it is.

QED
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 20, 2014, 12:30:11 AM
its a broad-based statement thus your inability or ability to textbook-bash it increases or decreases probability dramaticaly. there's nothing about the statement that contradicts established physics exept the part about a 2lot violation so either you should be able to give a broad-based established textbook counterexplanation or not.if not,then the 2nd half of the statement begins to look shiny.its not a particle collider we're dealing with here @sarkeizen.its a broad class of battery.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 20, 2014, 02:35:56 AM
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?

Please provide the calculations to prove your point.  You of course can't but it will be fun to see what dodge you come up with.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 20, 2014, 07:59:45 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 20, 2014, 05:38:01 PM
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
I 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.
 
Profitis claims her belief requires no math.  However she is clearly attempting to add probabilities.  She also apparently was never taught how.  Do you think profitis can guess why 100 combinations may not add up to a significant shift in likelihood?  My bet is "no".

Profitis will now prove me right. :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 20, 2014, 06:37:22 PM
Your using it by not using it man.you see what I mean,you yet again delayed a direct address and counterattack to the statement.it is now a statement hanging in the balance for errr a couple months now?hanging there unchallenged.its the hanging that increases probability mr sarkeizen.the hanging that beckons urgency dudet.makes it more real with each passing second.reiman hypothesis has nothing to do with a hundred different combination of gas electrodes shoved in electrolyte so its irrelevent here.a bad example @sarkeizen.probability favours the statement being more true with each passing second of your delayed counterattack mr sarkeizen.the first half of the statement is ESTABLISHED PHYSICS ya'll so where is your ESTABLISHED COUNTERATTACK?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on May 20, 2014, 08:20:35 PM
You just proved that Sarkeizen's prediction was correct.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 20, 2014, 08:21:40 PM
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.

Come back when you can answer that question. :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 20, 2014, 09:11:31 PM
No I just proved that sarkeizen is dancing around my statement and not on it @mark E
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 20, 2014, 09:18:01 PM
No I just proved that sarkeizen is dancing around my statement and not on it @mark E
Dude you said...
Quote from: least educated person on overunity - and that says a lot l
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
That 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. 

and it's pretty clear that you don't :D

HINT: You can't just combine any two probabilities.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 20, 2014, 09:19:40 PM
Because the 100 combos are realife combos not theoretical mr sarkeizen.you're arguing probabilities on the significance of engaging a statement on real experiments when you should be adressing it direct.one realife combo eg. Karpen pile is going to spark massive debate.100 realife combos is going to hammer it down to a rule.ie.your arguing with the child about where the remote is when its in your pocket the whole time.you're dancing around a statement on realife combos instead of addressing it.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 20, 2014, 09:29:00 PM
you're arguing probabilities
No 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.

I just happen to know considerably more about statistics than you likely ever will.

You also probably don't realize how you are weakening your own argument by pursuing this line of reasoning....but please continue...because I always use anecdotes like this to demonstrate how people's instinctive ideas about statistics are incorrect and in your case batshit insane. :D 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on May 20, 2014, 10:33:22 PM
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?

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 20, 2014, 11:50:04 PM
You forgot that I included people in the above statement highlighted by markE.You're neglecting the 3dimensionality of the probability factor mr sarkeizen.your correct on a calculator but incorrect when you take into account human perception and emotion.the perceptions being sight,hearing,smell,touch.if humans see a statement on 100 existing combos giving energy from 'somewhere' and no counterstatement,they are going to take it serious.thus a broad-based statement on something that exists requires urgent address.a statement on   100existences is going to have much more impact than a statement on one existence.unless it is countered successfully.now you see how statisticaly the statement becomes more important.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 21, 2014, 12:07:00 AM
The wheel itself is under scrutiny here markE not the numbers and figures around it. Over a hundred wheels actually..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on May 21, 2014, 12:36:27 AM
Such a response betrays that you do not understand the relevance of the problem as stated.  It suggests that as Sarkeizen asserts, and your prior statements suggest, that you do not understand probability theory.  Here is a hint for you:  In order for something to impact the likelihood of a second thing, there must be a causal relationship between the first thing and the second thing.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 21, 2014, 01:16:08 AM
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..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 21, 2014, 03:17:25 AM
Yet you cannot deny that the human element makes it statisticaly much much more important
LOL! 

Apparently you've never read any cognitive science.  Paper after paper and book after book.  People's instincts suck at data analysis.  For example a group of 83 human legal EXPERTS attempted to analyze supreme court decisions and their consequent reversals and attempted to predict future cases if your very, very, very, very stupid beliefs were correct they would have been highly accurate and much better than any calculation.

Sadly, the lawyers were only barely (9%) more right than wrong.  A simple regression analysis was correct 75% of the time.  Just to put it in perspective a linear regression is one of the most primitive tools available for correlation.  83 humans with all their senses and centuries of collective experience were absolutely no match for something that could be done with my cellphone.

There was another study that looked at something like seventy different professions which required human judgement.  The majority of them were also outperformed by a regression analysis. Which is why we have branches of math like decision theory.

People's internal pattern matching has evolved to stop them from getting eaten by raptors and eagles.  It's no accident that human progress correlates with computational power and data supply.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on May 21, 2014, 05:00:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 21, 2014, 11:23:24 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 21, 2014, 12:57:17 PM
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. 

Your opinion appears to be that humans believing that a battery lasts eternally somehow makes that highly likely.  I get that this is a blow to your ego but understanding that you are going to be wrong more often than right is an important step in becoming less stupid.  Rationality is a discipline, it's something that has to be worked at.

Let me know when you get there.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on May 21, 2014, 01:15:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 21, 2014, 01:44:38 PM
Rationality? Lol @sarkeizen so its more rational to ignore a sweeping statement on over 100 batteries of the same class than to tackle it headon? I mean either it is a)true or b)false.you want to enlarge the political vaccuum by not showing b or even attempting to show b? You want to let it hang further?what are you afraid of child..you are the 2lot representative lawyer here yet you're delaying the trial date but I gues that's what your supposed to do..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 21, 2014, 02:25:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on May 21, 2014, 02:57:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 21, 2014, 03:18:07 PM
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".

I must say I had forgotten how much fun it is to watch you squirm.  (You have shifted your argument about four times after asking me this one quesiton).

Thanks for the entertainment! :D  Please keep saying stupid things. :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 21, 2014, 03:42:22 PM
And so it goes dear audience.mr E will stand there laughing and mr sarkeizen will continue evading.meanwhile....my statement gathers more power..the political vaccuum increases.. What,dear audience,fuels a whole class of sealed karpen batteries?anyone?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 21, 2014, 05:07:49 PM
So then what kind of evidence would satisfy you that demons exist @sarkeizen. What are your standards for evidence
Just 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 seem to think there is a better standard but I'm hesitant to take advice on hypothesis testing from someone who hasn't completed a first year stats course. 

I'm sure you understand. :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 21, 2014, 08:42:32 PM
Remember how the karpen device and blueprint sparked a massive debate a few years ago when it hit the net mr sarkeizen. That debate still continues to this day,the one guy says its vibration,the other guy says its radiowaves,the other guy says its a 2lot discrepency,karpen himself declares it a 2lot discrepency etc etc. Now my question to you is this; what wouldve happened if the power density of that device was ten times higher,just ten times higher,how would that have,in your opinion, affected the outcome of the debate..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 21, 2014, 09:11:53 PM
So then what kind of evidence would satisfy you that demons exist @sarkeizen. What are your standards for evidence
Just 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 seem to think there is a better standard but you can't seem to stay on-topic for more than a single post...and of course you suck at math.

So any chance you're going to tell me what standard of evidence is better than my "provide a formal argument"?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 21, 2014, 09:45:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 21, 2014, 09:52:10 PM
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.

Let me know which one it is. :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 21, 2014, 10:14:17 PM
Are you no longer willing to talk about statistics mr sarkeizen. One lowpower gas electrode overpotential cell sparked a massive debate that continues unresolved.what is going to happen with other gas electrode overpotential cells that exceed the karpen power density by miles.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 22, 2014, 12:12:05 AM
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?



Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 22, 2014, 01:49:04 AM
statistics become the standard of evidence.have a look here: the one statement on the one overpotential cell sparked massive debate and the outcome remains in political vaccuum ie. unresolved.now the sam e statement on 100 such type devices does the same thing ie.ends in political vaccuum under file 'unresolved'.  Don't you think its beginning to look statisticaly unresolvable @sarkeizen? Why?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 22, 2014, 02:08:18 AM
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.

For example:

A P-Value is a statistic representing the probability that say a sample mean would be as extreme as one you have measured.
A standard of evidence is considering a P-value of 0.05 is sufficient to reject the null-hypothesis.

So again, are we talking about statistics or a standard of evidence.  Moron.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 22, 2014, 09:21:18 AM
Standard of evidence,,why are scientists that you consult on this issue at home and scientists around here eg markE unable to resolve this issue mr sarkeizen..doesn't that raise alarm bells for you,or suspicion.or at least motive to declare something highly unusual if not evidencial going on here.why can they not tell us when a overpotential differential device is going to run flat mr sarkeizen.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 22, 2014, 12:57:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 22, 2014, 04:46:23 PM
1)The first pile sparked debate many many years ago.it continues today,unresolved.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.6 reasons to take the hypothesis more serious @sarkeizen.at least more serious,don't you think?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 22, 2014, 05:24:28 PM
1)The first pile sparked debate many many years ago.it continues today,unresolved.
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.
So according to you:

1) Anything at all which people debated a long time ago and people debate today means the premise is highly likely to be true.
2) Anything at all which people talk about on this thread but have not definitively disproved in this thread is highly likely to be true.
3) Anything at all which challenges some law of science is highly likely to be true.
4) Anything at all which someone claims has been built and claims to operate in some way absolutely validates any and all claims about their operation.
5) Is just another case of 4)
6) Anything at all involving a hypothesis where some part is not unusual is highly likely to be true.

Is this correct?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 22, 2014, 11:20:03 PM
No sarkeizen: 1)any simple battery in existance which people debated a long time ago and still debate today means usuality won't do and unusual more likely true.2)anything related to number 1 which was discussed on this thread many months ago but was not number 1 but created the same political vaccuum as number 1 means unusual more likely true.3)anything which sensibly challenges an already challenged law to fill the political vaccuum created by 1 and 2 is more likely to be likely.4)anything related to and including number 1 that someone has built and claims to fill the political void of number 1 more than likely should be listened to.5)is just another 4.6) anything which has a half usual hypothesis to fill the unusual political vaccuum created by number 1 is likely to be unusualy usual,ie.a match for number 1 and its effect.   This is correct.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 22, 2014, 11:50:40 PM
any simple battery in existance
In 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?
Quote
means usuality won't do and unusual more likely true
Please re-write this part in English. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 23, 2014, 12:36:35 AM
I mean a piece of gold and a piece of plat shoved into electrolyte in presence of air and sealed off.this created a political vaccuum extending 70years and going on today.means there is no usual explanation.an unusual one necessary mr sarkeizen.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 23, 2014, 01:02:30 AM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 23, 2014, 02:44:44 AM
Everyone who was debating it knew it mr sarkeizen.if they didn't know then ofcourse it wouldn't apply because then a piece of enriched uranium shoved in a closed box couldve done same and there wouldve been no debate to begin with.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 23, 2014, 03:17:52 AM
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.

So a debate on the subject is possible even if something hasn't been built.  Right?  However according to you the existence of such debate does not increase the probability of the hypothesis being true.  Right?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 23, 2014, 03:53:04 AM
Why debate a piece of gold and plat shoved in electrolyte under air and then come to absolute zero consensus conclusion,after 70years @sarkeizen? Why is the subject of the 70year and ongoing debate:'what is fueling the thing' unresolved when galvanic science was and  now is even more fullblown understood? What is fueling the thing @sarkeizen?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 23, 2014, 04:16:05 AM
Why debate a piece of gold and plat shoved in electrolyte under air and then come to absolute zero consensus conclusion
So you agree you can debate something for a very long time that has never been built.  Right? Good.  Moving on then...

Now what if someone had, as you say built a device that had "a piece of gold and a piece of platinum shoved into electrolyte in the presence of air and sealed off" and the people debating it knew someone built it but, what if that was ALL they knew.  That is, all that they knew is that someone somewhere claimed to have built such a thing.

Does your rule still apply?  Does the longstanding debate still make your hypothesis highly likely?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 23, 2014, 06:22:06 AM
Come to the new thread mr sarkeizen.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 23, 2014, 06:43:21 AM
that WASN'T ALL THEY KNEW
So, in other words what?  No, it wouldn't make the hypothesis highly likely?  Good to know.

So according to you.  The hypothesis gets more likely if a device has been built and there's a long debate but it's not enough that there's debate and it's not enough that the device has been built and it's also not enough that they know the device has been built.   Therefore you are hiding something about your standard of evidence.

So clearly you think the probability of a hypothesis goes up if some kind of information is communicated to the debaters.  How about you tell me what exactly that is?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 23, 2014, 08:02:18 AM
the probability goes way up if you go to the other thread @sarkeizen.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 23, 2014, 01:42:55 PM
that WASN'T ALL THEY KNEW
Again 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?

This doesn't make your standard bad per se...I mean if someone arguing that a medical drug works and knows that there exists fifteen high-quality double-blind placebo controlled large-N studies.   Then sure the probability of their hypothesis being correct becomes very high but a) That would be the case regardless of if someone were opposing the idea or not and b) it seems exceptionally stupid to leave out such a crucial bit of information about how you're judging evidence.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on May 23, 2014, 01:51:38 PM
@sarkeizen, profitis has transferred the discussion on Karpen to the thread called KARPEN PILE.


Please post there on Karpen cells, and leave this thread to quentron.


Thanks
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 23, 2014, 02:07:34 PM
Please post there on Karpen cells
Dearest Phillip,

I'm not even posting about Karpen Piles here. If you read the thread you can see I'm talking about standards of evidence and I have actively eschewed talking about Karpen Piles as I am a mathematician not an electrochemist.  The overarching purpose of such a discussion is to judge the evidence for Quenco.  Perhaps the reason that we spend time using profits's pet (stupid) idea as an example is the dearth of posts useful to this end about Quenco.

Please, now that you consider me someone worthy of being addressed by name (albeit in a way rather suspiciously similar to profitis).  Feel free to jump in with your own ideas about hypothesis testing.

Thanks,

sarkeizen.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on May 23, 2014, 02:23:28 PM
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.


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 am happy to discuss the general issue of 2LOT and Maxellian Demons on the KARPEN PILE thread.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: memoryman on May 23, 2014, 03:29:49 PM
Philip, we exchanged many emails 2 years ago (memoryman). I am curious: have you finally got good quality working samples?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on May 23, 2014, 03:42:59 PM
How credible a test for a claim is rests on the strength of the evidence that the test generates in relation to the claim.  Long before an experiment is conducted, the experiment should be designed and evaluated for its ability to discern between a null result that rejects the hypothesis under test and a result that supports the hypothesis under test.  If under the conditions of a known null control the experiment yields other than the null result, then the experiment is flawed and its design must be reconsidered.  I encourage you to do all that you can to vet whatever experiments you propose buyers perform before you offer units for sale.

An example of something that would indicate a Second Law violation to me would be an experiment where a quantity of heat passively moves from a lower temperature reservoir to a higher temperature reservoir.  Let me place two reservoirs in a well insulated chamber, let those two reservoirs each start at the same temperature, communicate thermally, and show that heat does not move from one to the other for the null experiment.  Then all things equal add the second law violating mechanism to the first reservoir and observe that its heat decreases while the heat in the second reservoir increases by a like amount.  Swap out the reservoirs and repeat showing that the apparent heat movement direction is not specific to the reservoirs.  Do all that successfully well above the uncertainty of your instruments, and I think you would have strong evidence of a Second Law violation. 

My message is that the method by which you or your customers will test is in many ways more important than the how or why by which you hope to be able to violate the Second Law.  Whatever you do, make certain that you shake out your test ideas well in advance.  That way, when the day comes people interested in your claims will accept your test methods as valid.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 23, 2014, 04:43:27 PM
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?

Has it not occurred to you that there are whole billion dollar industries which are completely and utterly FAKE which rely on precisely the same standard of evidence: "If you don't believe me, try it for yourself".
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Because of this people often forget that it's possible to have a weak hypothesis pass a strong test and have the result still not be credible.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on May 23, 2014, 06:28:45 PM
I don't swing the other way either.   I appreciate the compliment.

I am very skeptical of Mr.Hardcastle's claims.  Just the same, I would be happy to help him work out solid test protocols if he wants my help.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 23, 2014, 10:10:10 PM
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).

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on May 23, 2014, 10:16:50 PM
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).

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.
A lot of people have trouble with the (1 - N) that frequents statistics.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on May 24, 2014, 01:40:27 AM


I think the only sensible reply to people trying to ascribe probabilities that have no actual knowledge is that of the PM Benjamin Disraeli;


"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

"it is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point."


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.

As I stated before I am happy to debate M Demons on the Karpen thread, but not here.

Thanks.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 24, 2014, 03:59:52 AM
I think the only sensible reply to people trying to ascribe probabilities that have no actual knowledge
Since 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. 

So remind me again, which one of us has no actual knowledge?

Quote
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)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Thanks.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on May 24, 2014, 08:37:30 AM
Mr. Hardcastle statistics can be very helpful to those who want to find the truth.  The fact that some have abused figures by misapplying them doesn't change the utility of statistics.  It merely tells us that we must carefully evaluate the logic used and actual evidence provided in support of any argument.  If you have intellectual property concerns that prevent open discussion of test protocols, then I hope you will do whatever you can to vet your proposed test protocols with qualified persons in private.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: murmel on May 25, 2014, 10:21:03 PM
can a person who believe it, also test the device ? :-) or am i excluded for stupidity ?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 29, 2014, 05:57:39 PM
Pointing out that the Karpen thread died out almost as soon as it started.

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.


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on May 29, 2014, 09:28:42 PM
Pointing out that the Karpen thread died out almost as soon as it started.

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 29, 2014, 10:28:05 PM
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....

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on May 29, 2014, 11:11:55 PM
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....

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.  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.

OTOH, Mr. Hardcastle is usually very serious.  I think WYSIWYG with him. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 02, 2014, 03:08:09 AM
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.

If Profitis is purely a troll.  Why stay out of this thread?  Clearly I am here and more than ready to banter back and forth for months with him.  Why acquiesce to Philip?
Quote
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.

So I agree.  If he's an abysmal manager then he may be as he appears but it seems at least plausible he's also involved in some duplicity.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 02, 2014, 05:27:38 AM
Mr. Hardcastle has promoted his ideas other places where he sometimes got into very heated arguments with other people.  If I remember right he spent a lot of time on EF promoting spinny things that were supposed to violate the 2nd Law.  I think that it was about then that he got on a letter writing campaign to the Australian government.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 02, 2014, 10:31:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 02, 2014, 11:50:55 PM
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 03, 2014, 12:07:09 AM
I'l troll where I please mr sarkeizen its also about marketing.the lab that shoves me in it and pays will increase in prosperity,fast.in other words,I know my shit :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 03, 2014, 12:21:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 03, 2014, 01:42:50 AM
All possible from a top-dollar lab @markE :D.I've already published,here.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 03, 2014, 01:44:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 03, 2014, 02:51:55 AM
Lol @sarkeizen.your above statement coming from a guy who barely remembers his primary school chemistry..why do you want a cite for something which you can just build. That's like demanding a reason for  looking in your pocket to see if the lost remote is there before you look.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 03, 2014, 03:22:16 AM
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? 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 03, 2014, 03:26:18 AM
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?

:D :D :D :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 03, 2014, 03:48:53 AM
After experiments @ mark E.all diagrammed cells in this thread work as claimed.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Rigel4 on June 03, 2014, 03:52:09 AM
You've published your results before you've conducted your experiments?
Rossi did this and even sold one.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 03, 2014, 03:54:43 AM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 03, 2014, 04:18:53 AM
After experiments @ mark E.all diagrammed cells in this thread work as claimed.
Those experiments were conducted when and by whom and documented where?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 03, 2014, 04:20:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 03, 2014, 04:21:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 03, 2014, 04:36:43 AM
 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 03, 2014, 04:49:27 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 03, 2014, 05:30:41 AM
@sarkeizen a)be careful.some strangers carry pepper spray. b)if a gambler turns me down its because he,s stupid.c)this is improbable.d) 1)so what 2)so what 3)not if you understand the laws of diffusion.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 03, 2014, 07:21:40 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on June 03, 2014, 08:22:01 AM
Troll all you want to pointless and Sarcastic, but on 20th August I will reclaim this thread with a World shattering announcement.


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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 03, 2014, 08:32:19 AM
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.
Quote
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?
Quote
No more until 20th August here.
or after.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 03, 2014, 08:39:20 AM
Troll all you want to pointless and Sarcastic, but on 20th August I will reclaim this thread with a World shattering announcement.


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.
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 03, 2014, 12:50:13 PM
A working replicated karpen pile or relative of a working replicated karpen pile with zero political consensus about its fuel is highly likely to be successful mr sarkeizen.your an idiot.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 03, 2014, 02:26:58 PM
A working replicated karpen pile or relative of a working replicated karpen pile
i) A device of the kind you describe must be "capable of running an ipod-like device eternally"
ii) Any claim of something running eternally can not be validated through pure empiricism.
iii) You claim that you can not create a formal argument to make your point.
iv) Therefore, no device of this kind can be ever said to be "working".

QED.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 03, 2014, 08:21:34 PM
Phillip? Where's your response??
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on June 04, 2014, 05:17:31 AM
@profitis, I have answered you on the Karpen thread.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 04, 2014, 02:35:04 PM
Philip, where are my car keys and do you think you can pick up some milk on the way home?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 05, 2014, 12:35:15 AM
Just putting this back in the proper thread...
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on June 05, 2014, 01:51:44 AM
@Sarkeizen,


If you want a polite conversation on the subject I will engage with you for a while as I have some free time at the moment.


I say that a device (such as Sebithenco) sorts particles (electrons) into two regions based simply on the ability of the electron to overcome an energy barrier.


You say that some information is needed to do that, and 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 information (this of course is the idea put forward by people before you who believe proof of the 2nd Law lies solely with information theory).


Is the above a fair summation?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 05, 2014, 03:25:41 AM
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 information
Ah 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.

A problem with your device is that there is almost no useful description of it's mechanism (even Lumen who was pretty far up your butt for a while appeared to acknowledge this).  So you can start by answering this question for me: Can your device's sorting mechanism be described in macroscopic terms?  i.e. the user called "register" considered that it was essentially "salmon jumping".

If not, then would you agree that the sorting mechanism for your device can essentially be described as "quantum magic".  Not to deride your amazing...some would say impossible...invention with that term.   Consider that in some contexts I'd also say: A gate-model quantum computer can factor large integers quickly through quantum magic.

Quote
This of course is the idea put forward by people before you who believe proof of the 2nd Law lies solely with information theory
The 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on June 05, 2014, 03:45:04 AM
@Sarkeizen,


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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 05, 2014, 03:58:18 AM
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?

I think, because you appear to have to resort to talking about electrons the answer is "no".  In which case I'm going to refer to your mechanism as "quantum magic".
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 05, 2014, 04:04:23 AM
@Sarkeizen,


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.
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on June 05, 2014, 04:04:49 AM
The term quantum magic is silly.


It is what it is, a ratchet. It deals with individual causal events, the sum of which is a macro violation of 2LOT, clearly the individual event is not as it involves a very hot electron going to a colder region.


It is a ratchet that works, not just a theoretical one.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on June 05, 2014, 04:08:42 AM
@MarkE, I am the first to tell people that simple diodes (vacuum or semiconductor) cannot harvest noise.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on June 05, 2014, 04:12:31 AM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 05, 2014, 04:18:27 AM
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.

Quote
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.

Calling something a "ratchet that works" is really no different than calling it "A ratchet that overcomes the problems which stop it from giving us something for nothing".  It's begging the question. :D

So with that in mind can we call it a "Quantum Mechanism" oh great and powerful Oz?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on June 05, 2014, 04:26:20 AM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 05, 2014, 04:40:34 AM
@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.

I'm not a princess, I don't need to be treated like one.  Nor do I need someone forgetting to curtsy as an excuse to make a quick exit but if you think you are lecturing from some imagined high-ground here then you are sadly mistaken.

You can stay or go.  How much of your argument I take down is directly proportional to how much you are willing to show.

So is "quantum mechanism" an acceptable term?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 05, 2014, 05:40:08 AM
@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:

1. You appear to be arguing that your device can differentiate energy based on voltage potentials.  Is that what you are arguing?
2. That voltage potential between two points does not define relative energy.
3. That 2. is well demonstrated by Dr. Brillioun in his circa 1958 treatise on the notion of using a diode to attempt to harvest Johnson Noise.

If 1. is correct, then from 2. and 3. we should have little expectation that you have a device that can perform as a working Maxwell Demon.  You may not believe 2.  If you do not, then I suggest that you research the Brillioun diode and its close relative:  the Feynman ratchet.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 05, 2014, 06:18:23 AM
I see no point in listening
The problem, in a nutshell.

A decent litmus for a crank is their insistence on open-mindedness...for theories that aren't theirs.

I mean look at profitis - same problem he thinks he's observed something and nothing can shake his faith.   Philip seems capable of at least entertaining the idea that profitis is wrong (assuming they're not the same person) but doubt his own ideas?  THAT'S UNPOSSIBLE.  Psychics, religious people.  Same.  Thing.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on June 05, 2014, 11:08:41 AM
@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.


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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 05, 2014, 11:41:59 AM
@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.


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.
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.

Appeals to authority don't change nature.  As to whether you are right are wrong, the odds are not good for you.  You are making an extraordinary claim but you haven't offered evidence that supports that claim.  You have a history of doing such and coming up wrong.  The weight of evidence available to me is very much against your claim.  So, yes, I strongly believe that you are wrong and your efforts are therefore misguided.

While I am not out to agitate you, I think it is rather off that you assert that I would go back to saying I thought you were once a geologist when long ago: You corrected my honest mistake, I apologized for making it, and have not made that mistake since.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 05, 2014, 01:42:34 PM
you come across as being arrogant and condescending.
Must...resist...comparison...to...darkly...colored...housewares
Quote
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".

Rossi?  Steorn?  Firepower International?
Quote
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.

Do I need to put a QED here?

I think I do.

QED.
Quote
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
I, for one will be telling people that well after August 20th.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 06, 2014, 02:49:41 AM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 06, 2014, 04:46:53 AM
Mathis goes out of his way to promote what he knows is silly BS.  Mr. Hardcastle is on a quest.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 06, 2014, 05:24:58 AM
I don't know if Mathis is a con man or simply deluded.  A conman is more likely considering how ridiculous the claim.  Grading on the same scale I'm not sure about Philip.  He might be simply deluded but there are a few things which suggest the opposite to me.  For example he might really have the sensitivities of someone from 1837 London.  I simply find it hard to believe.  You could never operate in the real world that way.  Can someone, who isn't a dictator of a small country be more than five decades old, worked in all sorts of places and still be L'Enfant Terrible?  Seems less likely than the alternative.  It's just a way to avoid awkward questions.

Again Philip claims to be involved in all sorts of business activities but neither plans for the proper lead time or does any of the normal activities associated with said activities.  His website talked about a "launch" but no effort was put into advertisement (other than his website).  He has claimed to be producing a product but clearly has no clue about the amount of time it takes to tool up for a production run.  You might do a custom or hand-create products but the point of that would be if your product doesn't work.  Which would mean he's lying (to us, to himself?) about his confidence.

In these things, Philip looks like someone trolling the OU community. 

Such classifications aren't mutually exclusive either.  I suspect that lots of people perform "little cons" backed by considerable delusion because "I just know it will work this time".
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 06, 2014, 05:53:10 AM
What you say could be correct.  It is not my interpretation of Mr. Hardcastle.  I don't think it is so hard to see where he gets his motivation.  The Second Law is a very frustrating thing.  As Dr. Sheehan notes, it's one of the few principles we have that has not seen any effective modification in over 100 years. So one might very well question why there is no exception out there someplace.  The trouble is  that as frustrating and unsatisfying as the Second Law may be:  It's here to stay until someone discovers solid evidence against it. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 07, 2014, 07:05:42 PM
No @markE.Its more a case of 2lot re-arrangements being not quite the 'in' thing to do.its not in the elites interests to re-arrange such a law so it aint going to officialy happen regardless what evidence arises.for example,another 50years will go by with no official consensus over karpens lil battery even though it fits perfectly into college textbooks. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 07, 2014, 07:59:02 PM
it fits perfectly into college textbooks.
An assertion you've never been able to demonstrate in any useful way.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 07, 2014, 08:53:59 PM
It wasn't me who asserted overpotential differences @sarkeizen.it was the textbooks.I only asserted that you could not escape a 2lot disgrace if you agreed with the textbooks and that that assertion had no alternative assertion in theory or practice.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 07, 2014, 08:59:13 PM
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 07, 2014, 09:26:59 PM
So why is it then impossible for you to point out how the textbook assertion does not end in a nightmare 2lot disgrace then @sarkeizen.the textbooks asserted that gas spillover will in fact take place.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 07, 2014, 09:44:42 PM
So why is it then impossible for you to point out how the textbook assertion
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 08, 2014, 12:41:50 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 08, 2014, 01:16:25 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 08, 2014, 01:34:25 AM
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".

If this *isn't* your argument then you can demonstrate by providing a textbook cite and a formal argument.  However since you can't. Even if this isn't your INTENDED argument.  It's still the STRONGEST reason why it's infeasible.  So until you refute that.  Your "It's impossible to refute because of _____" is an argument that you can simply not make.

Please feel free to try.  Since you have failed at so much in this thread might as well go for the trifecta.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 08, 2014, 01:56:54 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 08, 2014, 02:46:41 AM
Can I ask you a question @mark E? (-:
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 08, 2014, 02:49:34 AM
Can I ask you a question @mark E? (-:
Obviously, you just did.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 08, 2014, 02:58:22 AM
Right but here's another  question: if I take a piece zinc and a piece copper and shove them under vaccuum and contact them together..what kind of entropy change is taking place here? Does one piece cool down and the other heat up on contact?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 08, 2014, 03:05:33 AM
I'm refering to a contact potential,s reversable thermodynamics btw @markE
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 08, 2014, 05:16:51 AM
I'm refering to a contact potential,s reversable thermodynamics btw @markE
Those are two different things.
In order for a thermodynamic process to be fully reversible it must be able go either direction between two states without any external applied energy.  Do you assert that such a thing happens under the conditions you state with your copper and zinc strips?  If you do, then please identify the states and show that such a thing happens by experiment or some reputable reference.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 08, 2014, 10:24:45 AM
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..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 08, 2014, 01:03:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 08, 2014, 02:14:13 PM
My claim is that there is a temperature change with this 100% reversable process: www.micromagazine.fabtech.org/archive/05/01/images/0501MI56a.gif
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 08, 2014, 02:30:57 PM
You should first establish your claim that the process is 100% reversible.  BTW: Your link is bad.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 08, 2014, 02:41:52 PM
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 @markE
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 08, 2014, 03:22:45 PM
The metal combos can be lithium/platinum,caesium/gold,zinc/gold,zinc/copper,zinc/tin etc etc.the metal pieces can be large/small/rough/smooth thus I've now established that the capacitance can be made arbitrarily large @mark E.now its just a question of the temperature changes that accompany this process..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 08, 2014, 09:16:15 PM
Cmon @mark E.whats going to happen if we close the switch in that diagram,then open it.wheres the irreversability???????
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 09, 2014, 12:04:05 AM
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 @markE
You have not established such a thing.  For your vacuum conditions:  the system is in thermal equilibrium and remains there. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 09, 2014, 12:10:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 09, 2014, 12:20:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 09, 2014, 04:16:55 AM
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. 

Again you have failed to specify the two states you consider and show that the system can move between those states in either direction.  You have failed to establish reversibility.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 09, 2014, 11:37:25 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 09, 2014, 05:56:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 09, 2014, 06:20:45 PM
Lol @mark E.when you can show the scientists watching here that the above system in a single reservoir is irreversable THEN we can resume the discussion (-:
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 09, 2014, 06:23:10 PM
You are just getting sillier and sillier.  It is up to you to show that the system is reversible.  In order to do so you must both: identify the at least two thermodynamic states, and show that the system can freely move from one to the other by itself.  You have not performed either task. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 09, 2014, 06:38:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 09, 2014, 07:59:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 09, 2014, 08:39:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 09, 2014, 08:53:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 09, 2014, 09:08:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 09, 2014, 10:06:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 09, 2014, 10:24:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 09, 2014, 10:33:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 09, 2014, 10:42:08 PM
Its a thought experiment @mark E.don't take it too seriously.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on June 11, 2014, 05:46:32 AM
Hi profitis,


I can assure you that your position on the thought experiment is wrong, and I can in detail explain why (this is one of my fields of expertise), but being respectful to the participants in the conversation I will properly give MarkE the opportunity of meeting your challenge, if after giving him a few more days he still cannot explain the reasons that it is false, then I will.


Phil
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 11, 2014, 01:29:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 11, 2014, 02:14:57 PM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 11, 2014, 02:39:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 11, 2014, 04:07:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 11, 2014, 04:53:27 PM
Haha phil I thought there was a chance I might be wrong.I have an idea why

and yet...

Lol but it is impossible.that's what I'm saying man.it is totaly impossible for you or anyone else

Profitis lies again.  Yawn.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 11, 2014, 11:55:09 PM
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 diagram
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 12, 2014, 12:04:25 AM
No lies @ sarkeizen. It remains impossible for you to disprove perpetuum mobilum in all gaseous spillover cells. We're talking about contact emfs now,don't distort the subject.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 12, 2014, 12:31:56 AM
No lies @ sarkeizen. It remains impossible for you
..or anyone....that's what you said.  See it's right there in the quote.

So you lied.  No surprise but just worth pointing out. :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 12, 2014, 01:01:06 AM
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 diagram
Unfortunately, you present yourself as though you do not. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 12, 2014, 03:35:11 AM
No lies @sarkeizen.you or anybody.it has been the highlight of my life to have made such a bold declaration here in on internet knowing that nobody can or will prove me wrong.its like a rush, a cocain high, and I haven't profited off of it one cent yet.that remains to be seen.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 12, 2014, 03:50:31 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 12, 2014, 04:24:42 AM
No lies @sarkeizen.you or anybody
So Philip can't but you thought he might.    You realize that "can't" and "might" are mutually exclusive.
Quote
it has been the highlight of my life to have made such a bold declaration here in on internet
Dull life.
Quote
knowing that nobody can or will prove me wrong
If 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

There are probably hundreds and thousands of arguments I can't prove wrong...simply because nobody mentioned them to me.  Yours is pretty much the same thing.  Not sure that's something to be proud of though.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 12, 2014, 04:46:10 AM
Philip is the electrostatics expert here @sarkeizen so of course I might be wrong on the above diagram,s thought-experiment.counterarguments for my declaration are a dime a dozen,you have to physically prove that Im wrong mr sarkeizen.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 12, 2014, 05:09:28 AM
Philip is the electrostatics expert here @sarkeizen so of course I might be wrong
Then you can't say "not you not anybody" if somebody can.  From where I sit Philip has only shown expertise in making grand claims.
Quote
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 12, 2014, 09:27:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 12, 2014, 11:18:30 AM
It cannot even be defeated on logical grounds mr sarkeizen: all gas spillover cells necessitate a 2lot disintergration in theory and in practice.you cannot destabilize this statement using logic or physical demonstration. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 12, 2014, 11:29:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 12, 2014, 12:26:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 12, 2014, 01:00:58 PM
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. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 12, 2014, 01:59:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 12, 2014, 02:16:02 PM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 12, 2014, 02:20:37 PM
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. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 12, 2014, 02:55:44 PM
It cannot even be defeated on logical grounds mr sarkeizen
Two interesting consequences of that statement:

i) Philip can not provide an argument against it.  Since one would assume that you would listen to Philip's argument because it is logical.
ii) You know of a formal logical argument (from an ordinary text) which proves your belief.

If ii) is true, then your only accomplishment was to kept your argument secret.

As I've said, it's unsurprising if I can not defeat arguments I've never been told. :D :D :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 12, 2014, 04:27:45 PM
Where's the irreversability here @sarkeizen.in other words what is going to change here to a degree that will prevent repetition in the profit margin. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 12, 2014, 04:46:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 12, 2014, 04:57:22 PM
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. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 12, 2014, 05:10:30 PM
Where's the irreversability here
Don't know.  I'm not an expert at converting a  picture into your homework assignment (which you keep asking people to do for you).

If you have a formal argument then stop hiding it.  If you've forgotten what a formal argument is.  Then ask and I'll define it.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 12, 2014, 05:49:38 PM
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..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 12, 2014, 05:59:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 12, 2014, 06:05:02 PM
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. 

If by this: 
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 12, 2014, 06:13:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 12, 2014, 06:16:11 PM
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

Keep on hiding your formal argument.  It's the only way to spare yourself the shame. :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 12, 2014, 06:25:55 PM
Its not an argument from ignorance @sarkeizen because there's only one option: to show non-profitable irreversability.showing that for ANY other textbook scenario is easy.why not this one?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 12, 2014, 06:49:38 PM
Its not an argument from ignorance @sarkeizen
Actually 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.

Again if there's a formal argument for showing that 2LOT can be violated from assumptions contained in ordinary textbooks.  I will destroy it (show it to be false, show that it does not force it's conclusion, etc).  So the only thing keeping your argument from being destroyed is that you are keeping it secret. :D :D :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 12, 2014, 07:54:59 PM
What secrets @sarkeizen?? The diagram is clearly visible straight from google.nothing to hide here. now smash my claim of profitable reversability.or do you want another 50year karpen non-consensus on your hands :D :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 12, 2014, 08:00:13 PM
Where's mark E? Cmon @mark E.neutrality is favoured when seperate.charged is favoured when contact.cmon.destroy this statement otherwise phil will have to come to the rescue :D :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 12, 2014, 08:20:05 PM
What secrets @sarkeizen?? The diagram is...
...not a formal argument.  Too bad you're too afraid (or too stupid) to provide one...Ho hum....
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 12, 2014, 08:54:24 PM
That doesn't make it any less reversable @sarkeizen try again :D:D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 12, 2014, 08:56:41 PM
Where's mark E mr sarkeizen? Why did he run away when I cornered him?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 12, 2014, 09:09:59 PM
What you have produced is not a formal argument.  Which is what I said I could snap like a toothpick and what you seemed to claim you had. So it seems reasonable that you're afraid to produce it, or that you don't have one or you can't produce one.

One of those.  Ho-hum....
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 12, 2014, 10:52:04 PM
As i said,that doesn't make it any less reversable @sarkeizen :D :D :D.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 12, 2014, 10:53:46 PM
Where's mark E @sarkeizen? Why did he flee when cornered? :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 12, 2014, 11:03:16 PM
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. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 12, 2014, 11:25:22 PM
Oh really @sarkeizen.let's test you then.lets see if you can do better than mark E on the contact emf issue. So I declare: the seperate metals favour neutrality.the contacted ones not.where am I wrong here and why.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 13, 2014, 12:26:45 AM
Oh really
Sure.  Provide a formal argument, stemming from textbook cite.

The only way you are avoiding massive humiliation is because you either can't or won't.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 13, 2014, 12:32:26 AM
Yawn,,I give them childrens questions and they give me requests in return.please step in @phil hardcastle.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 13, 2014, 12:37:25 AM
Yawn,,I give them
You keep hiding your argument then blame me for not answering it.  Ho-hum.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 13, 2014, 01:03:05 AM
If contact is needed to establish a contact potential difference then I have a very legit ground on which to float my hypothesis of reversability @ sarkeizen because it will mean that the system's favoured entropy state will strictly depend on our switch being open or closed. If contact is not needed to create a contact potential difference to the full extent of a contacted one then my reversability hypothesis falls away because it will mean that there's only one favoured entropy state regardless of our switch.got it @sarkeizen? That's the dilemma here and I need more info from experts
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 13, 2014, 01:15:56 AM
If contact is needed to establish a contact potential difference then I have
If 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.

The rules have been the same for months.  I don't play "guess my argument".
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on June 13, 2014, 01:20:23 AM
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?


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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 13, 2014, 01:22:07 AM
Thanks phil.either they intentionally avoid or they truly know jackshit about the subject :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 13, 2014, 01:37:56 AM
profitis is 100% correct
Probably not.
Quote
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. 
Quote
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
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on June 13, 2014, 01:45:42 AM
@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 thread, unless you simply want to wind him up.



This leaves MarkE to respond, fortunately for you MarkE does claim to be an expert on physics and chemistry.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 13, 2014, 02:00:24 AM
@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 thread
Do you ever get anything right Phillip?

I have openly admitted from the start that I'm not a physicist or a electrochemist.  That's different than knowing nothing.  In fact most of the people who talk on OU are not physicists or electrochemists.   Are you excluding them from having conversations here too?  And after that stirring speech about how OU is going downhill too.

The fact of the matter is that profitis claimed he had a formal logical argument many times over.  If he was, as you say: lying.  Well that's not really my fault.  Part of the social contract is giving people the benefit of the doubt.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 13, 2014, 02:01:21 AM
Yes Mark E throws his weight around here to play the superscientist @phil.he coulvde given me a straight answer to my childrens question long ago if he is what he projects himself to be yet he malingered,made same demands as sarkeizen. Maybe sarkeizen is mark E??
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 13, 2014, 02:37:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 13, 2014, 02:49:52 AM
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?


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.
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.

He seems to be suggesting, but does not state that current will flow indefinitely around a loop made with two dissimilar metal "C" pieces with or without a gap.  Whether or not current does flow, and for how long does not help any claim of reversibility if the process does not spontaneously reverse.  He can at any time state what his actual beliefs are.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 13, 2014, 02:59:02 AM
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. 

Dude, all you had to say, at any time is: "I can't construct a formal logical argument for my particular delusion" and we would be done.  Say it now if you want.  Won't hear a word from me after.

Quote
Maybe sarkeizen is mark E??
Yes.  All people who care about logic and reason are sarkeizen and mark E.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 13, 2014, 11:24:28 AM
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 cyclic thermodynamics??
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 13, 2014, 11:30:01 AM
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. 

It is rather apparent that you present yourself as unfamiliar with what thermodynamic reversibility is.  Here is a link to the wikipedia article which is not bad:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_process_%28thermodynamics%29

We will see if you ever get around to actually constructing a cogent argument for your gapped bimetal "C" core representing a reversible process.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 13, 2014, 11:35:07 AM
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...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 13, 2014, 11:48:24 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 13, 2014, 12:29:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 13, 2014, 12:30:21 PM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 13, 2014, 09:46:07 PM
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 15, 2014, 01:06:44 AM
I disagree @sarkeizen.this thread is history in the making.this thread is one of the greatest contributions to science in the history of overunity.com.if mark E doesn't have sufficient knowledge to tell us why a simpleton contact potential is irreversable then phillip hardcastle will fill us in.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 15, 2014, 01:13:19 AM
@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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 15, 2014, 01:42:45 AM
I disagree @sarkeizen.this thread is history in the making.
You live in a dull world. 
Quote
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.
If Philip says something that makes you agree you are completely wrong.  Then it would be based on an assumption that you probably knew deliberately didn't tell anyone.  Which pretty much validates my argument.

Not sure what about that makes Philip intelligent or this thread worthy of the history books.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 15, 2014, 02:16:28 AM
Mr sarkeizen it boils down to only 2 possibilities: 1)the capacitor remains permanently charged in which case it never had to touch the other metal in the first place for equilibrium or 2)it is charged only when contact happens leaving a stable reversable entropy position open for us when seperate.I just want mark E to tell me its number 1 and close the case that's all. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 15, 2014, 02:28:24 AM
And this thread is damn valuable because who ever discussed irreversabilites or reversabilities of contact potentials on the forum or even the whole internet before? Certainly nobody on the forum.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 15, 2014, 02:43:34 AM
And I might not even be satisfied with phil's explanation mr sarkeizen.we'l see.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 15, 2014, 03:09:51 AM
Mr sarkeizen it boils down to
Dude.  You came in here boasting about how you know so much about this branch of science but you don't know:

i) Enough to put your argument in formal terms stemming from a textbook.  What would you do if you had to write a paper?  You would have to be able to produce an argument that was at least somewhat formal. 
ii) Enough that Philip who is not a specialist in electrochemistry says he has a counter-argument and now you are "Oh yeah, I thought there might be a problem".

If this thread isn't a setup then you really don't know enough about what you're talking about to convince any non-stupid person that you have this figured.
 
Quote
And I might not even be satisfied with phil's explanation mr sarkeizen
If you say so.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on June 15, 2014, 03:55:56 AM

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.


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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 15, 2014, 04:09:25 AM
Ive got a sharp eye for hidden entropy states that most people don't see, that's my talent,even if its not in my ballpark science branch I know how to picture heat-and-change in my mind and make a logical conclusion from there.entropy is simply...change and cost over time.we want to look at the balance books here @sarkeizen.we don't need any formality for that.we do need all the behavioural facts first though.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 15, 2014, 04:09:58 AM
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. 
Quote
MarkE is having such difficulty despatching it tells me he is not an expert in either electrochemistry, physics or thermionics
However, according to you he is right and profitis is wrong.  Which makes profitis pretty stupid.
Quote
need to stop putting forward objections of formality of argument
That'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.
Quote
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:

i) Profitis's argument persists because he simply withheld information.
ii) Profitis is a moron.

So how does you proving me right humiliate me?  I'd think someone as arrogant as you might be humiliated by proving someone you consider to have zero knowledge of a subject correct.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 15, 2014, 04:15:50 AM
Ive got a sharp eye for hidden entropy states
According 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. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 15, 2014, 04:29:27 AM
@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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 15, 2014, 04:38:41 AM
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.


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.
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 15, 2014, 04:46:55 AM
I can hardly wait to hear your explanation phil.its not my intention to be provocative its just my nature to point out a loophole if I see or even suspect im seeing one.I imagine you've thought this one through or perhaps others have or maybe its just common knowledge amongst thermionics experts .yes sarkeizen doesn't seem to have any appreciation of scientific detail and will not debate on a science level itself which is a pity because he wouldve been exellent candidate for physics debates. he's good for peripheral debates around but not in physics itself.I think that mark E has some sort of generalized spread out knowledge on science but not sure if specific in any field.he may be intentionally deflecting or malingering as opposed to cutting to the chase yes.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 15, 2014, 04:49:41 AM
Profitis, you may at anytime you like actually present an argument that you purport supports your claim.  If you are accepting Mr. Hardcastle's position prior to even stating an argument:  then you are done before you have started.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 15, 2014, 04:54:02 AM
Sssiiiiggghh @markE.I rest my case geeezzz..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 15, 2014, 05:04:45 AM
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??
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 15, 2014, 07:26:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 15, 2014, 03:21:17 PM
yes sarkeizen doesn't seem to have any appreciation of scientific detail
I 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.

You need an argument, the argument must stem from things everyone agrees on.  If people don't you will be asked to cite references, if you use a term in a non-standard way you will be called on it.  This is how the peer-review process works and that is how science works.

So I find it amusing that someone who claims to be a scientist (Philip) constantly avoids the kind of formalism which makes science work.  You who have pretensions of being in a lab somewhere don't feel the need to argue your work.

Likely the facts are that Philip is either a fraud, or a has-been who doesn't do real science anymore or someone who lucked into a degree when they were easier to get.  If you actually read the questions he poses to you in the failed Karpen Pile thread they're all trivial.   Not only that but they're based on the assumption that your battery works.  Which is entirely the wrong place to start.  It's far, far, far, far more likely that an anomalous result is the result of error than some breakthrough.

Neither of you have any clue how to argue your case.   Which explains why there is so much squirming when you are asked to formalize your argument.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 16, 2014, 12:36:11 AM
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)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 16, 2014, 12:53:42 AM
@sarkeizen actually phil interrogated me pretty hecticly on the karpen subject which is a good thing.feel free to ask me any questions about the karpen device or spillover cells in general. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 16, 2014, 01:11:25 AM
@sarkeizen actually phil interrogated me pretty hecticly on the karpen subject
Hectic just means busy or fast.  Doesn't mean "well".  I read until I got bored Philip's questions were softballs.  Yawn.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 16, 2014, 01:39:24 AM
Mr sarkeizen you wanted formality so ask me formal questions.go on,shoot..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 16, 2014, 02:00:27 AM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 16, 2014, 02:06:01 AM
That's what I'd also like to know @markE. Is there any single thing driving them to another state.?? what do you think?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 16, 2014, 02:41:51 AM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 16, 2014, 03:40:55 AM
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,promise
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 16, 2014, 03:48:37 AM
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,promise
Define "informal".
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 16, 2014, 04:00:27 AM
Informal meaning something that is not agree-able by all scientists.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 16, 2014, 04:12:56 AM
Informal meaning something that is not agree-able by all scientists.
That's not what I'm talking about.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 16, 2014, 05:51:05 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 16, 2014, 06:04:37 AM
What do you mean @sarkeizen
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 16, 2014, 06:07:27 AM
It hangs on the answer to my question @mark E.now do you know the answer or not.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 16, 2014, 07:23:25 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 16, 2014, 10:41:40 AM
So you can't answer my question then teacher mark E.great.this doesn't help.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 16, 2014, 12:40:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 16, 2014, 01:37:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 16, 2014, 01:48:38 PM
Even if they only partially chargeup spontaneously over the gap we have a problem.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 16, 2014, 03:32:17 PM
What do you mean @sarkeizen
I've defined "formal argument" about ten times for you in this thread.  Thanks for being an asshole yet again.

A formal argument is where each step logically forces the next one.  That is there is no possibility of the second not being true if the first is true.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 16, 2014, 03:41:43 PM
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. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 16, 2014, 03:45:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 16, 2014, 04:21:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 16, 2014, 04:33:01 PM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 16, 2014, 04:52:12 PM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 16, 2014, 08:10:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 16, 2014, 09:46:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 16, 2014, 09:49:03 PM
That's what I'm talking about and I told you I'm too lazy to cite.start googlin @sarkeizen.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 16, 2014, 10:45:36 PM
That's what I'm talking about
So? Only morons would be interested.
Quote
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.

Make a formal argument from textbook citations or keep on hiding your argument, it doesn't bother me.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 16, 2014, 10:56:39 PM
Nope.only replicators would be interested.start googlin @sarkeizen.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 17, 2014, 12:00:50 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 17, 2014, 01:47:45 AM
Replicators @sarkeizen.look at the voltage here on the original after 60yrs still the same 1volt on each pile.this is an oxygen spillover pile.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 17, 2014, 04:33:36 AM
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. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 17, 2014, 05:15:51 AM
Replicators @sarkeizen
Morons...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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 17, 2014, 12:40:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 17, 2014, 01:13:59 PM
I've given my formal argument @sarkeizen.chek it with the textbooks :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 17, 2014, 03:22:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 17, 2014, 07:10:15 PM
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 reversable
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 17, 2014, 08:54:42 PM
I've given my formal argument
Nope. 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 17, 2014, 09:23:08 PM
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 reversable
I 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 18, 2014, 03:04:45 AM
It seems phil was right markE.you have extremely limited knowledge on thermodynamics.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 18, 2014, 03:07:34 AM
@sarkeizen.don't lie I have provided a completely formal annihilation of kelvins rule.I have provided 1) replicable information.2)exposed a whole CLASS of 2lot exterminator cells.3)an explanation entirely consistent with modernday textbooks.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 18, 2014, 04:06:04 AM
@sarkeizen.don't lie I have provided a completely formal
If 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.

Sorry.  This is just one of those times where your lying doesn't work. :D :D :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 18, 2014, 04:43:18 AM
@sarkeizen.my argument doesn't necessitate annihilation of kelvins rule?really? Point out Where..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 18, 2014, 05:46:24 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 18, 2014, 05:48:07 AM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 18, 2014, 06:01:01 AM
@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.

Next time.  Lie less.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 18, 2014, 11:44:33 AM
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 (-:
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 18, 2014, 12:14:12 PM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 18, 2014, 12:54:01 PM
Mr sarkeizen.you have to show to the scientists who are watching here that spillover is not spontaneously cyclic.that is the only way out for you.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 18, 2014, 03:20:40 PM
@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
Dude.  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.

If you can present a formal argument stemming from a textbook cite.  I can defeat or show that it's not formal.  So far you haven't done either, so again this is just back to you hiding something and again I have no problem saying that I can't refute an argument that you have never presented.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 18, 2014, 03:46:28 PM
There it is @sarkeizen..a few of my posts back..the one about atomic hydrogen. You have to show that its false.if u can't show that this is false straightout then how the hell are u going to show that its false if cited?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 18, 2014, 04:14:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 18, 2014, 04:15:22 PM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 18, 2014, 04:16:09 PM
There it is @sarkeizen..a few of my posts back
I 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.
Quote
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 18, 2014, 04:35:53 PM
@phill hardcastle I think it is now time for you to drop the bomb on contact potentials.it seems mark E has run full circle to his switch and has nothing further to offer.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 18, 2014, 04:42:31 PM
@sarkeizen: you don't have knowledge in the field and your telling me that my statement is informal? Start googlin mr sarkeizen :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 18, 2014, 05:03:19 PM
@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:

i) step 1
ii) step 2
iii) step 3

Then you simply assert that it is impossible for step 1, not to imply step 2, and it is likewise impossible for step 2 not to imply step iii) and so on.    At that point you provide a cite for your i) and then you will have, if you are correct about the formality and the assumption in i) a formal true argument.

Then you can just sit back and watch as I kick you in the nuts. :D

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 18, 2014, 05:08:44 PM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 18, 2014, 05:19:38 PM
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?

Lie less profitis. :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 18, 2014, 05:33:31 PM
Oh so you are only going to kick me in the nuts when I provide a 'formal' argument mr sarkeizen.but you cant when I provide an 'informal' one.very strange :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 18, 2014, 05:40:02 PM
Quote
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
Quote
very strange :D
What'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

Oh and thanks for admitting implicitly that you have not provided a formal argument - and admitting again that you lied. :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 18, 2014, 06:17:15 PM
Hiding information? Gaseous spillover is either reversable enough to profit from it or its not. There it is all out in the open.what info can one hide to forward the argument that it is??? Its like me saying lifting a cigarette is profitably reversable: what can I hide to forward the argument that it is? Don't be ridiculous @sarkeizen
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 18, 2014, 06:56:19 PM
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.

Keep on lying. :D :D :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 18, 2014, 10:37:41 PM
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..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 18, 2014, 10:49:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 18, 2014, 11:13:56 PM
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 stupid
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on June 19, 2014, 12:57:05 AM
Hi Profitis,

I am no expert in this field and don't claim to be. I do know a little though!
Can you explain how your proposed system works (such that I can recreate) and whether it's possible to tap excess energy from it?
I understand there aren't any references, cites etc available on the web (do post some links if here is) so if you are able to give some instructions for me (probably others too) to replicate the that's great.  ;)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 19, 2014, 01:24:48 AM
Oh so your not a field expert but you want to tell me what a formal argument is going to look like
Because 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
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 19, 2014, 02:24:25 AM
Hi @madebymonkeys long time no see. the mechanism of these cells are explained on the karpen pile thread and all through this thread.you want to try the nickel/silver type cell under hydrogen gas for impressive results but its no easy feat.you are going to need extensive electrochemical knowledge and experience in order to get it right but you can give it a shot.hydrogen is a very tricky thing to work with as it will leak through many plastics over time so its best done in sealed glass bulb.how anyone is going to melt-seal a glass bulb with hydrogen in it is beyond my knowledge but manufacturers of certain types lightbulbs seem to get it right.you are going to have to electroplate your nickel anode with nickel-black for maximum surface area and your going to have to etch your silver cathode for surface area there.your electrolyte is going to be caustic soda solution and your connecting wires pure silver or gold leading out your glass bulb. You want to practice getting this right in sealed plastic before you end up in the glass bulb for perfection.your voltage should be around 0.7/0.8v when the cell is at its maximum resting potential.If there is any air trapped in your cell then the voltage peak will plummet over time,that's how you know you have failed.the tiniest invisible hole will cause the system to fail.hope this helps @madebymonkeys
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 19, 2014, 02:38:51 AM
And if madebymonkeys succeeds in powering his ipod permanently with the above cell what are you going to then say @sarkeizen.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 19, 2014, 02:59:46 AM
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 stupid
How 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 19, 2014, 03:03:47 AM
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".
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 19, 2014, 03:18:08 AM
And if madebymonkeys succeeds in powering his ipod permanently
As always this is not a test that can be performed.
Quote
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. 

For example, you lie quite a bit and you appear to have zero problem with lying to me.  Hence it is considerably more likely that you will lie about your results of any test I give you to do than there exists an actual 2LOT violation.  That's just the probability you create when you lie so frequently.  I'm sure you have some internal rationalization for lying.  For example you said before that I deserved it (for no useful reason) and it seems entirely possible that you would happily lie about a problem with your results that you think is "easily fixable".

Which brings us to why a formal argument is so important.  While you can lie and say something is a formal argument when it isn't (and you have done this) and it's possible to misidentify something as a formal argument but you can't actually make a formal argument lie.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 19, 2014, 03:40:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 19, 2014, 04:08:40 AM
Yawwwn @sarkeizen.just build the thing and see for yourself.its power density is many many times that of karpens original.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 19, 2014, 04:34:20 AM
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:

Quote
per·ma·nent
ˈpərmənənt/
adjective
adjective: permanent

    1.
    lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely.

An indefinite period is a long, long time.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 19, 2014, 05:18:34 AM
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.

I've noticed that you've squirmed away from the idea that you can provide a formal argument...now that you know you can't.  I wonder if this elevates the probability that you either know this kind of thing doesn't work or that you have no such device.  I'll have to think about it.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 19, 2014, 12:08:58 PM
No only someone who cannot specificly point out the irreversability of hydrogen spillover will build the cell @sarkeizen.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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 19, 2014, 12:17:10 PM
Yeah indefinitely means a little bit longer than 2hours @markE.try 60years.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 19, 2014, 03:01:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 19, 2014, 03:53:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 19, 2014, 03:55:06 PM
No only someone who cannot specificly point out the irreversability of hydrogen spillover will build the cell
Let's review:

You argue that someone who can't falsify an argument that
i)  is not explained to their satisfaction
ii) where no evidence from established authority is presented
iii) the person who is giving instruction lies frequently and happily
iv) there is work in other fields which says that the conclusion of the undisclosed argument is unlikely.

is therefore rationally required to build this.  Is pretty moronic, or pretty well illustrates how enormous the morons here are (if this indeed reflects people at OU).  There are literally an infinite number of arguments which could be posed this way.

Where I come from we use our brain to decide what is a good use of time.  This isn't.  The numbers are pretty clear.  Sorry.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 19, 2014, 04:16:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 19, 2014, 07:24:25 PM
You're entitled to your opinion
My opinion just happens to be supported by the numbers and reason.
Quote
@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.
Quote
The bottom line is that you cannot disprove MY argument
Of 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 19, 2014, 07:55:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 19, 2014, 07:57:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 19, 2014, 08:12:41 PM
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?

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>

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 19, 2014, 08:26:13 PM
Seriously.  Could you imagine this interview?

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>
That's about it.  My version goes like this:

Interviewer: "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!!!!!"
Interviewer:  "Really?  That's quite extraordinary.  How would you do that?"
Profitis: "I have discovered a way to obtain endless energy from an electrochemical cell."
Interviewer: "That's a bit difficult to believe.  Have you conducted experiments or published any research papers."
Profitis: "It's in all the text books."
Interviewer: "What is?"
Profitis: "The kind of electrochemical cell that delivers endless energy."
Interviewer: "I beg your pardon?"
Profitis: "It breaks the Second Law of thermodynamics."
Interviewer: "So, have you actually tested this idea of yours?"
Profitis: "You can't prove me wrong!!!"
Interviewer: "I see.  Well, I think I've learned what I need from this interview.  Thank you for your time."
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 20, 2014, 12:08:21 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 20, 2014, 12:36:55 AM
Yaaawwwn @sarkeizen your not helping the audience by flapping around the issue at hand: come down from the tree son, I won't slaughter you,promise :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 20, 2014, 02:45:42 AM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 20, 2014, 03:01:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 20, 2014, 03:51:07 AM
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. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 20, 2014, 04:04:45 AM
Why @ mark E.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 20, 2014, 06:25:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 20, 2014, 07:07:24 AM
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.

By profitis's """""logic""""" the lottery is a coin flip.  Either you win or you don't.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 20, 2014, 01:42:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 20, 2014, 02:11:12 PM
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.

Clearly any continuous outcome can be broken down into an arbitrary number of of discrete outcomes if the total probability of the continuous outcome is X clearly the sum of all discrete outcomes must be X.  Hence not all binary outcomes have a probability of 0.5...but why would you understand that when you misunderstand so much?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: minnie on June 20, 2014, 02:13:01 PM



   The Karpen thingy seems to be just a curiosity and of no practical use so I
 would think the odds are fairly well stacked against profitis building anything
 useful.
        John
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 20, 2014, 03:22:12 PM
Well the chances are still a heck of a lot better than a lottery mr sarkeizen. Chek this interview: me:'hi I'l replicate  karpens pile for you better than karpen did because I know how it works'. Labguy: 'oh yeah?' Me: 'hehe.'
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 20, 2014, 03:26:50 PM
Minnie,you're beautiful,mwa.so you're saying that if someguy built a shitty car that absolutely no-one would better it.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: minnie on June 20, 2014, 04:36:28 PM



 As far as I can see nobody's given us 1 Watt yet, therefore the
 lottery would seem to be the best bet!
    Some folk get things, others don't. Just go and build one and
 then there'll be no argument.
                  John.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 20, 2014, 06:15:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: gravityblock on June 21, 2014, 01:57:39 AM
By profitis's """""logic""""" the lottery is a coin flip.  Either you win or you don't.

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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on June 21, 2014, 02:14:03 AM
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.

That's right, your time would be better spent proving your theory to yourself first, rather than trying to get others to prove it to you.
You've described how to replicate so go ahead. I, unfortunately, don't have the drive to replicate a system which you say will work but haven't replicated yourself.

If its a sure-fire winner and (apparently) proven to work then go for it, build one and get the credit - what's stopping you? You will go down in history. Better still, if you can do it on the 20th August (2014!) we will all get a double whammy! 2 Monumental events in the same month, how awesome would that be?

Seriously though, thanks for taking the time to describe how I can replicate the system. After seeing whats involved I realise that I don't have the equipment to replicate it. If you have access to the right resources then I would love to see you do it, I think it would be a waste of time for you to do this but you have a point to prove...nobody else will prove your theory is valid, just you.

If you are PH then please do tell us whats happening in August (2014) - my theory is that there will be nothing happening......and that has much better odds than a coin toss :-)

If you say it works, make it work. If you can't, it doesn't.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on June 21, 2014, 02:28:36 AM
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

Your right, if you play half the combinations it is 50:50 (0.5)....but be isn't playing half the combinations.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 21, 2014, 04:55:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 21, 2014, 05:09:27 AM
Well the chances are still a heck of a lot better than a lottery mr sarkeizen
You have provided no evidence to justify that claim.

You pretty consistently lie about things.
You can not provide a compelling argument.
Your beliefs are unlikely based on evidence in other fields.

It's difficult to imagine how funding you would be anything short of imbecilic
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: gravityblock on June 21, 2014, 12:49:18 PM
Profitis,

Here's one for you.  I'm making the claim sarkeizen was born on the second Tuesday of the week.  Here's my proof according to sarkeizen's illogical reasoning, according to his definition and execution of a formal argument.

Let's see if we can follow his nutbar logic:
i)  His birth certificate says he was born on a Tuesday.
ii)  Tuesday is the second day of the week, following the first day of the week.
iii)  The second Tuesday of the week follows the first Tuesday of the week!

Since ii) is required to force iii), and iii) can not be false if i) and ii) is true, then.....

iiii)  Sarkeizen being born on the second Tuesday of the week is a valid argument.

This is how you kick someone in the nuts without being an expert in the field.  If he could only realize he is kicking himself in the nuts and not others, lol.

Gravock
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 21, 2014, 05:13:08 PM
@sarkeizen.your an idiot.why? Because its simply a matter of karpens pile improved.case closed.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 21, 2014, 05:32:44 PM
@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.
Then you said it was "better than the lottery" but the only thing you've given us is an argument which is barely an argument at all, which is counter to evidence in other fields and lies.

If your argument is still "You need to build this" you need to establish what makes your project significantly more likely than the guy at the bus shelter who mumbles about his time machine.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 21, 2014, 05:35:49 PM
Yes @gravityblock we watch him flap around in the tree while we're down here lol.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on June 22, 2014, 12:22:42 AM
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.

If its 50:50 then you could play twice and be guaranteed to win, right? Or at least have an infinitesimal chance of losing? I may have got this wrong, but I am working from math learned many many years ago as a kid!

Not sure about the prize, I can't remember what I said - remind me and I will honour it :-)
An iPod consumes around 1W (ish), iirc, when playing video and driving the LCD+backlight. Powering an iPod for a month or so, looping a video would be a convincing demo for something the same size.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 22, 2014, 09:46:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on June 23, 2014, 01:47:00 AM
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.
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!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 23, 2014, 02:53:48 AM
Agreed.
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!
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 23, 2014, 04:40:44 AM
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 23, 2014, 05:06:23 AM
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)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 23, 2014, 05:18:38 PM
Or a kitchen clock @madebymonkeys.no more batteries required for the kitchen clock anymore round the world with this filthy-cheap component.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on June 23, 2014, 07:19:53 PM
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

Hang on a sec, you originally said you could  power an iPod indefinitely - I thought we just had to decide which iPod and what indefinitely means. Of course, we know what indefinitely means so let's put an arbitrary timeframe on the problem. I thought a month was sensible?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on June 23, 2014, 07:33:34 PM
Or a kitchen clock @madebymonkeys.no more batteries required for the kitchen clock anymore round the world with this filthy-cheap component.

What's the estimated price per Wh or mWh?
The price has a big effect on viability, regardless of whether it runs forever.
Fitting a $0.10 battery to a kitchen clock and having it run for a year is fine for most people, the clock will probably be replaced after a couple of years anyhow :-)
Fitting a $1.00 ever lasting widget in the same item is overkill and, depending on whats required to make the widget, a waste of resources.

The same issue applies to TV remotes etc. A couple of AAA batteries will run mine for years and the cost is negligible. They are even recyclable once discharged.

Cost and size are everything. Something the size of a 10kg butane tank which can only provide a Watt is clearly not viable even if it runs indefinitely. Also, something this large will be costly to ship and also likely to have lots of materials - some of which may be expensive or 'nasty'.

Have a go at putting together a BOM for a 1W device and costing it. If it's more than the equivalent primary or Li-Ion cells then the outlook is bleak.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on June 23, 2014, 07:36:50 PM
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)

That's a completely different proposition to the one you gave originally ie. power an iPod indefinitely.
There is no problem to solve with a TV remote.

£150k for half the patent rights to IP which, by your own admission, is in plenty of textbooks isn't a clever move. If what you said was true then there will be prior art all over the place and a complete lack of novelty ie. no patentablity.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 24, 2014, 05:33:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 24, 2014, 06:30:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 24, 2014, 07:35:55 PM
shuffle type ipods with a tiny lcd display or no display at all
Only 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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 24, 2014, 08:42:25 PM
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. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 24, 2014, 08:43:42 PM
There's a plethora of pocket digital sound systems without displays and extra's @sarkeizen.I have to go hunting in the  stores to see what I can find.pocket radios also come needing one or two watch batteries and those batteries die out pretty fast even by self-discharge.I have to adapt   a reasonable sized battery TO the device which is not easy but not impossible. A milliwatt range superkarpen will be about a 30-50ml size.the problem is that karpens give power in bursts if power is drawn all-at-once which will require electronics to even out smoothly. So the ideal is a burst going to a capacitor,then the capacitor works your ipod while the karpen recharges for the next round.the other option is to allow the current through a rapid oscillator and then have a capacitor circuit smooth it out for the ipod.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 24, 2014, 08:54:02 PM
If that were strictly true then there would be no more patents allowed on a zinc-carbon @mark E.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on June 24, 2014, 09:31:57 PM
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.

But what's the ballpark costed BOM? That could be a deal breaker.
Oh, and you'll need more than a few mW. An iPod (even a shuffle) has a headphone amp capable of up to about a 100mW output (this is a pretty standard output pwr).
Don't adapt the iPod to the battery, make a proper battery!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on June 24, 2014, 09:40:10 PM
If that were strictly true then there would be no more patents allowed on a zinc-carbon @mark E.

There would be no more patents based on the available prior art, correct.
Prior art also includes patents granted and subsequently expired.
That said, if it's a novel (note the word 'novel') method for making zinc carbon batteries, say a manufacturing process, then that could be granted.
If your selling patent rights then you'll need a patent first, not an application...this can take many years and typically does!

The grant of a patent requires that the application be novel - something can't be novel if its been described before or is 'common knowledge' or obvious to 'someone in the art'. Hope this helps.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 24, 2014, 09:46:22 PM
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. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 24, 2014, 09:49:34 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
the problem is that karpens give power in bursts if power is drawn all-at-once
Then shorting is probably a stupid test.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 24, 2014, 10:15:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 24, 2014, 10:29:00 PM
@mark E and madebymonkeys so the principal of alesandro volta galvanic cells was laid bare for all to see,does that stop me from getting a provisional patent on a zinc-iodide cell?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on June 24, 2014, 10:47:39 PM
trolls
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


.
.
.


.








..
.


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.


..


.
..
.


.
.
.
.
.
.


.
.
.
..


.
.
..
.
.
.


.
.
.
.
.
.


..


.
.
.


..
.
.
.


.
.
.
.
..


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..


.
.
.
.
.
.
..


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


.
.
.
.
.
.


.
.
.
.
.
.


.
.
.
.
.
.
.


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


.
.
.
.
.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on June 24, 2014, 10:48:12 PM
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.
As for the efficiency of the iPod shuffle, I don't know that. Some of the inefficiencies will be unavoidable of course.
Look at some circuits and tell me just how to drive a pair of 20kOhm piezoelectric speakers at a reasonable volume consuming only uW's - that's worth more than this Karpen funny-business!
In reality, it would mean a radical change in headphones as the drivers wouldn't be backwards compatible with moving coil. Oh and don't forget that piezoelectric headphones have been around for a long time, they didn't exactly catch on.

Adapting to the battery - already done, it's called Li-Ion. The battery is considered at the initial design stages whatever the technology. There's no money in adapting other peoples electronics to match a terrible battery tech.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on June 24, 2014, 10:48:19 PM
trolls
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


.
.
.


.








..
.


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.


..


.
..
.


.
.
.
.
.
.


.
.
.
..


.
.
..
.
.
.


.
.
.
.
.
.


..


.
.
.


..
.
.
.


.
.
.
.
..


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..


.
.
.
.
.
.
..


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


.
.
.
.
.
.


.
.
.
.
.
.


.
.
.
.
.
.
.


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


.
.
.
.
.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 24, 2014, 10:49:09 PM
@sarkeizen I don't think anyone is going to mind carrying around a 50ml to listen to their favourite numbers all day and night.it will be the cool thing to have and brag to ones friends about I reckon. You saw the power density of mr karpens original long ago now I come here to shrink the size of that thing to a 40th for the same power and you complain?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on June 24, 2014, 10:53:52 PM


Grow up.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 24, 2014, 11:13:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on June 24, 2014, 11:14:09 PM
STUPID TROLLS
trolls...trolls......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on June 24, 2014, 11:15:05 PM
trolls.........................................................Stupid, rude, uneducated TROLLS............................................................................................................................................................................
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on June 24, 2014, 11:17:43 PM
This thread was started by me to discuss Sebithenco and quenco, if you want to rattle on for months about Karpen and probability you should go to the Karpen thread.


What you guys are doing is trolling and trashing my thread.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 24, 2014, 11:29:06 PM
Sorry phill.can we take the discussion to the karpen thread please @madebymonkeys? (-:
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on June 24, 2014, 11:36:38 PM
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.

The original bet still stands....the original one! Power iPod indefinitely from something of a similar size :-)
50ml is a big battery, I guess that's not including the housing?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on June 24, 2014, 11:40:07 PM
Sorry phill.can we take the discussion to the karpen thread please @madebymonkeys? (-:

Yep. I guess this thread needs to be cleared for Phil's big news on the 20th August (2014)?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 25, 2014, 01:37:51 AM
I'm not sure @madebymonkeys but I must respect him.my reply is there on the karpen thread.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 25, 2014, 02:09:52 AM
@sarkeizen I don't think anyone is going to mind carrying around a 50ml
Welcome 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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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 quenco
There 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 25, 2014, 03:16:12 AM
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)
Those also are steadily getting replaced by cellphones.  I don't wear a watch because I have a cellphone.  I don't have a clock in my office because I have a cellphone and a computer.  None of the meeting rooms in our organization have clocks, same reason.  All the cool kids use their phones for remotes for media these days and the ones I do have already have batteries that outlast the device.  My current wireless keyboard came with batteries in it and is guaranteed that I won't have to replace them for five years.

Anyway we've indulged your delusion enough.  You are still claiming there's some reason to fund you yet...

You have no convincing argument.
Evidence from other fields says you're a complete idiot.
You have lied a lot and were completely okay with that.

Soooo......why would anyone spend their own money on anything you say....
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 25, 2014, 03:35:32 AM
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....
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on June 25, 2014, 04:25:31 AM

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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on June 25, 2014, 04:39:08 AM
So what's going to happen on August 20th?


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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 25, 2014, 04:47:56 AM
That is all I am going to say now on that subject.
Until it comes time to make excuses and move goalposts.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on June 25, 2014, 04:52:01 AM

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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on June 25, 2014, 02:01:15 PM

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?

No doubt.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 25, 2014, 03:16:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 25, 2014, 03:29:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 25, 2014, 09:27:25 PM
I don't see seiko and co complaining about loss of buisness
Because seiko is actually a group of companies which sells a lot of things.
Quote
@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.
Quote
as I've said many times before,a combination of textbooks
In your own words there is nothing in textbooks from which you can make a formal argument to a 2LOT violation from.
Quote
and lack of reason for irreversability
How is this different from saying "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence"?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on June 25, 2014, 09:44:33 PM
Sufficient absence of evidence may be evidence of absinthe.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: TinselKoala on June 25, 2014, 10:55:23 PM
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: minnie on June 25, 2014, 11:44:19 PM



 Ah,lovely, a bit of humour. Haven't laughed so much for ages.
                John.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on June 25, 2014, 11:52:59 PM
I'm not sure @madebymonkeys but I must respect him.my reply is there on the karpen thread.

Any ideas how my post asking PH to 'grow up' disappeared?
The post was made after PH's long posts about 'trolls'.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 26, 2014, 12:50:15 AM
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.

Quote
something straight out the textbooks sticks out like a sore thumb
The facts still remain. 

You have no compelling argument.
Other fields say you are wrong.
You consistently lie.

Your response is barely English but it sounds like you're saying because you (or someone else) can't show you something it can't reasonably exist.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: celsus on June 26, 2014, 12:50:48 AM
Any ideas how my post asking PH to 'grow up' disappeared?
The post was made after PH's long posts about 'trolls'.
This one? http://www.overunity.com/12207/quentron-com/msg407704/#msg407704
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on June 26, 2014, 01:10:12 AM
This one? http://www.overunity.com/12207/quentron-com/msg407704/#msg407704

Sorry, celsus, my bad, well spotted.
 ::)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 26, 2014, 04:16:28 AM
I'm almost certain that profitis and Philip are giving each other handjobs in the Karpen thread...

Another good reason not to go there.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: steeltpu on June 26, 2014, 07:23:31 PM
I'm almost certain that profitis and Philip are giving each other handjobs in the Karpen thread...

Another good reason not to go there.

sarkz you are showing what a real piece OS you are.   you start a thread whining about being called a name and calling the race card.  nazi's are not a race.  they are evil bad boys.  now you are sexually harrassing members and that is okay?   
head shake
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 26, 2014, 08:22:33 PM
you start a thread whining about being called a name
About gravityblock being racist you mean? My post was about if that behavior is considered acceptable by the admins here.
Quote
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?
Quote
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.
Quote
head shake
That'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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: gravityblock on June 26, 2014, 09:28:07 PM
About gravityblock being racist you mean? My post was about if that behavior is considered acceptable by the admins here.

It is you who is racist and not me!  It is your behaviour that is unacceptable, and not mine!  A white supremacist is the one who is racist or prejudice in a negative way to those who do not share their same beliefs or opinions, and not the other way around!  You have done nothing but invert the Truth!  Your statements are nothing more than psychological projections of yourself!  A psychological projection is when a person defends themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others.

Gravock
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on June 30, 2014, 03:39:18 PM
The characters here keep getting weirder....which makes me wonder if this entire site is constructed primarily from trolls.
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.
Quote
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.

Ah well....I await Philips failure in August.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on July 01, 2014, 11:56:54 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on July 02, 2014, 03:38:07 AM
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.

Perhaps his more recent quotes are already paving the way for his non-product to be unavailable.  However the above quote implies more than just an announcement.  Of course a very strict reading would be that "products would be available for sale at some arbitrary time after august 20th."  I'd expect that most people would read this as "products will be available on, or very close to August 20th".

This would be further bolstered by the statement

Quote
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.

So given these reasonable readings of Philips posts I expect him to fail to deliver such a device in or around august 20th.  September 20th or in or around the 20th of any month up to and including  November 20th 2525.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on July 02, 2014, 11:03:47 AM
@pomodoro it is powered by HYDROGEN SPILLOVER straight from the textbooks my friend.please google.
Because profitis won't....
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on July 03, 2014, 12:41:00 PM
@sarkeizen google is saturated with hydrogen spillover
Nope.  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.

However *yawn* as we all know you can't. :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on July 03, 2014, 04:09:13 PM
Nor is there any internet info that can show that such spillover is irreversable @sarkeizen
So absence of evidence is always evidence of absence?  Thanks for giving me a win. :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on July 05, 2014, 11:05:50 AM
One might reasonably wonder whether Profitis confuses electrochemical reversibility for thermodynamic reversibility.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on July 05, 2014, 12:58:34 PM
I guess you didn't see the word spontaneous there @mark E
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on July 05, 2014, 01:11:20 PM
I guess you didn't see the word spontaneous there @mark E
LOL, 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on July 05, 2014, 01:28:41 PM
 Really @mark E? Then tell us how oxygen spillover from eg. Pt onto Au is thermodynamicly irreversible.the floor is yours...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on July 05, 2014, 01:39:34 PM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on July 05, 2014, 01:55:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on July 05, 2014, 02:09:32 PM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on July 05, 2014, 02:22:08 PM
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 E
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on July 05, 2014, 03:29:47 PM
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 E
Then 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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on July 05, 2014, 04:27:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on July 05, 2014, 05:52:18 PM
Stating that he has reactions without consuming reagents would be tantamount to violation of conservation of mass / energy.  I don't know how he intends to try and wiggle out of that one.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on July 05, 2014, 06:51:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on July 06, 2014, 09:44:24 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on July 06, 2014, 11:09:14 AM
@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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on July 06, 2014, 12:37:24 PM
@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. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on July 06, 2014, 02:29:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on July 06, 2014, 05:49:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on July 06, 2014, 10:12:27 PM
Ja but you still need to show us that catalytic gas spillover isn't perpetual motion @mark E.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on July 06, 2014, 10:13:52 PM
Ja but you still have to show us that textbook catalytic spillover isn't an eternal unchanging power source at least on paper
Only if absence of evidence necessitates evidence of absence.  Since it doesn't, you are kind of left with no argument.
Quote
@mark E.we are highly stupid after the latest romanian museum measurements.
Yes.  Yes you are.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on July 06, 2014, 10:17:08 PM
Ja but its a textbook principal @sarkeizen.you have to show us how at least on paper its not violation of 2lot.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on July 06, 2014, 10:32:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on July 06, 2014, 10:35:33 PM
Ja but we the audience are highly suspicious after the latest romanian measurements @sarkeizen.we want you to show us how textbook catalyst spillover obeys 2lot that's all.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on July 06, 2014, 11:11:25 PM
Ja but we the audience are highly stupid after the latest romanian measurements
Yes. Yes you are.
Quote
@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.

Until then you're just asking me to refute something you haven't provided.  Yawn.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on July 06, 2014, 11:26:05 PM
Ja but the textbooks provided catalyst spillover.we just want you to show how it obeys 2lot in general or specificly @sarkeizen.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on July 06, 2014, 11:28:45 PM
@mark E we also want you to show in general or specificly how catalyst gaseous spillover obeys 2lot.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on July 06, 2014, 11:32:04 PM
@mark E @sarkeizen.you may use any specific example of catalyst spillover.just show us how it obeys 2lot.at least explain it to us
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on July 07, 2014, 02:46:13 AM
Ja but the textbooks provided catalyst spillover
So you say.  You've provided nothing.  So again you're hiding your argument.   You want me to refute something that you won't provide.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on July 07, 2014, 02:52:51 AM
@sarkeizen.you may use any specific example of catalyst spillover
Don' t have any examples.

So again *yawn* same argument from months ago.  You want me to discuss "how textbooks say X is a 2lot violation" but you refuse to provide any mention of "X violating 2lot" in textbooks.  You claim it's there...but for a reason far more suspicious than anything measured on a Karpen Pile you can't provide it.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on July 07, 2014, 02:56:39 AM
We 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on July 07, 2014, 03:19:37 AM
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on July 07, 2014, 03:40:36 AM
My point is that the textbooks definitely do not prevent fullscale reversibility of such phenomena other than claiming 2lot inviolable mr sarkeizen.this is why we need you to save the day.we need you to explain to us how it doesn't violate 2lot.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on July 07, 2014, 03:48:19 AM
My point is that the textbooks definitely do not prevent
Wait.  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". 

Are you saying you no longer assert that?  If so, you could have told me I won the argument a few months ago. :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on July 07, 2014, 03:54:23 AM
@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.


I am now declaring to this forum that I am no longer prepared to post here.





Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on July 07, 2014, 04:00:31 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on July 07, 2014, 04:04:35 AM
Sorry phil I'm just bored at the moment.im going back to the other thread.mark E angered me earlier that's what started this.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on July 07, 2014, 04:22:16 AM
@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

Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on July 08, 2014, 12:50:28 AM
Quote from: profitis
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on July 13, 2014, 01:58:34 AM
@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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on July 13, 2014, 02:20:27 AM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on July 13, 2014, 02:22:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: gravityblock on July 13, 2014, 07:18:50 AM
LOL!  Does the entropy not increase with time?

Reference:

1.)  Negative Absolute Temperature (http://www.quantum-munich.de/research/negative-absolute-temperature/) - Negative absolute temperatures (or negative Kelvin temperatures) are hotter than all positive temperatures, even hotter than infinite temperature.  Please note, they are using the text book definition of temperature (First snapshot below).

2.)  Negative Absolute Temperature for Motional Degrees of Freedom (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/339/6115/52?ijkey=kXamUlcWliV0M&keytype=ref&siteid=sci) - An ensemble at positive temperature is described by an occupation distribution that decreases exponentially with energy.  If we were to extend this formula to negative absolute temperatures, exponentially increasing distributions would result.  However, the energy can be increased even further if high energy states are more populated than low-energy ones. In this regime, the entropy decreases with energy, which, according to the thermodynamic definition of temperature results in negative temperatures. The temperature is discontinuous at maximum entropy, jumping from positive to negative infinity. This is a consequence of the historic definition of temperature (Second & Third snapshot below).

Entropy is the Ultimate Order!

Gravock
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on July 13, 2014, 09:03:24 PM
You are completely out of context.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: gravityblock on July 13, 2014, 09:59:51 PM
You are completely out of context.

Temperature is defined via entropy, so there's nothing to be taken out of context as you wrongly asserted with no explanation by you whatsoever.  Entropy is a measure of disorder in the system.  It is related to the number of energy states that are occupied by the particles: If only one energy state is occupied, as for example the lowest energy state in the case of a temperature of zero Kelvin, the system is very ordered and the entropy is zero. If the particles are however distributed over many energy states, low energy and high energy, the system is very disordered and the entropy is large.  Snapshot below showing how entropy defines temperature.

Gravock
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on July 13, 2014, 11:13:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: gravityblock on July 14, 2014, 02:57:33 AM
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.

It is you who is committing the converse fallacy, and not me!  This is another psychological projection of yourself, which we are so familiar with.  My reply was in response to your question of "Does the entropy not increase with time?"  I even quoted your question in my reply, so this is another intentional misdirection by you.  Your question had nothing to do with Profitis' electrochemical process itself, but had everything to do with entropy in general.  Now, you're trying to put a totally different context and meaning to my posts by mixing negative temperatures (temperature entropy) to Profitis' electrochemical process (electrochemical entropy).  My reply was to show how entropy is the 'ultimate order'!  Since entropy is the ultimate order, and electrochemical entropy has precedence over temperature entropy, then Profitis's electrochemical process should stand on it's own under the right conditions.

Gravock
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on July 14, 2014, 03:13:44 AM
Troll, troll, troll down the stream you go.  "the entropy", as in the entropy in his electrochemical reaction.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: gravityblock on July 14, 2014, 04:35:08 AM
Troll, troll, troll down the stream you go.  "the entropy", as in the entropy in his electrochemical reaction.

It is you who is trolling and not me.  Another psychological projection of yourself.  You are mixing "the entropy" as found in your first question of your post with the second question, which is in reference to the net direction of a chemical reaction.  I never quoted your second question in my post, and for a very good reason!

Below is your original post which I previously replied to.  Please note how I only quoted the bold portion in my reply to you, which is more related to entropy in general and not to Profitis' electrochemical process.  The second question, which was not quoted in my reply to you, "Does not a chemical reaction proceed net in one direction:  feed stock to result?", is more specific to Profitis' electrochemical process.  The reason why I didn't quote your entire post, was to avoid any confusion.  However, we all know how you like to muddy the waters. 

LOL!  Does the entropy not increase with time?  Does not a chemical reaction proceed net in one direction:  feed stock to result?

Now, to answer the second question, a chemical reaction does not always proceed net in one direction.  Both reversible and irreversible reactions are prevalent in nature.  French chemist Claude Louis Berthollet introduced the concept of reversible reactions in 1803.  In reversible reactions, the reactants and products are never fully consumed; they are each constantly reacting and being produced.  This is the same thing which Profitis has been saying for his electrochemical process!  Unlike irreversible reactions, reversible reactions lead to equilibrium: in reversible reactions, the reaction proceeds in both directions whereas in irreversible reactions the reaction proceeds in only one direction.  If the reactants are formed at the same rate as the products, a dynamic equilibrium exists. For example, if a water tank is being filled with water at the same rate as water is leaving the tank (through a hypothetical hole), the amount of water remaining in the tank remains consistent.

Reference:  Reversible vs. Irreversible Reactions (http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Equilibria/Chemical_Equilibria/Reversible_vs._Irreversible_Reactions) (see snapshots below for a quick reference)

Gravock
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on July 14, 2014, 04:45:40 AM
You are so confused.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: gravityblock on July 14, 2014, 04:57:20 AM
You are so confused.

It is you who is the author of confusion, and I do not subscribe to your nonsense!

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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on July 14, 2014, 05:05:07 AM
It is you who is the author of confusion, and I do not subscribe to your nonsense!

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: gravityblock on July 14, 2014, 05:35:47 AM
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! 

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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on July 14, 2014, 05:52:55 AM
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! 

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
LOL!  A review of your posts says otherwise.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: gravityblock on July 14, 2014, 06:02:43 AM
MarkE,

Does a reversible chemical reaction proceed in both directions?

Gravock
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on July 14, 2014, 07:24:38 AM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: gravityblock on July 14, 2014, 09:15:54 AM
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?

If I want to shout, then I will use all capital letters.  Yes, a reaction still continues in a reversible chemical reaction that is in dynamic equilibrium.  The word dynamic shows that the reaction is still continuing.  As fast as something is being removed, it is being replaced again by the reverse reaction.  This is called the position of dynamic equilibrium.  At equilibrium, the quantities of everything present in the mixture remain constant, although the reactions are still continuing. This is because the rates of the forward and the back reactions are equal.  If you change the conditions in a way which changes the relative rates of the forward and back reactions you will change the position of equilibrium (for example, changing the proportions of the various substances present in the equilibrium mixture).

Reference:  Explaining Chemical Equilibria (http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Equilibria/A._Chemical_Equilibria/Explaining_Chemical_Equilibria) (snapshots provided below for a quick reference).

Gravock
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: gravityblock on July 14, 2014, 09:20:24 AM
MarkE,

Does a reversible chemical reaction proceed in both directions?

Gravock

Does a reversible chemical reaction proceed in both directions?  Can you answer this question or not!

Gravock
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on July 14, 2014, 09:30:06 AM
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. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: gravityblock on July 14, 2014, 10:32:39 AM
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.

By simply pouring a granular mixture we can watch it separate into its components with no effort on our part. This spontaneous form of pattern formation is a natural example of what physicists call “symmetry breaking” and is very simple to demonstrate in a kitchen.  JS commenting on this video wisely says, "It seems the 'more organized' state is the one with the higher entropy".    Reference:  Spontaneous Stratification (http://www.simonsfoundation.org/multimedia/mathematical-impressions-multimedia/mathematical-impressions-spontaneous-stratification/)  (first and second snapshot of the video and comment below)

Laminar flow has the interesting property of reversibility.  In this video, physicists demonstrate how flow between concentric cylinders can be reversed such that the initial fluid state is obtained (to within the limits of molecular diffusion, of course!)  Reference:  Demonstration of the reversibility of laminar flow (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p08_KlTKP50) (third snapshot of the video below)

Like I said MarkE, Profitis' electrochemical process can stand on it's own under the right conditions.  There is nothing forbidding this from happening!

Gravock
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on July 14, 2014, 11:15:15 AM
LOL!  Enron style accounting is amazing stuff.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: gravityblock on July 14, 2014, 01:50:10 PM
LOL!  Enron style accounting is amazing stuff.

Yes, a pure natural system based on the 'ultimate order' of entropy without any human intelligence behind it performing better than Enron's accounting style is amazing stuff!  According to Enron's accounting style, things go from an ordered state to a disordered state, which is the complete opposite of a pure natural system of entropy, LOL!  Enron is the one doing the mixing while the pure natural system is separating the mix into it's components!

Gravock
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on July 15, 2014, 12:25:51 AM
LOL!  Learn to count.  Oh, that's right you have struggles somewhere between 3 and 4.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: gravityblock on July 15, 2014, 11:48:16 AM
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).

Gravock
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on July 15, 2014, 12:28:50 PM
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).

Gravock
Dude:  Weight is not energy.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: gravityblock on July 15, 2014, 10:45:03 PM
Dude:  Weight is not energy.

Where did I ever say weight is energy, LOL?

Gravock
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on July 16, 2014, 02:08:12 AM
Are you lost ... yet again?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: gravityblock on July 16, 2014, 02:40:38 AM
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?

Gravock
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on July 16, 2014, 05:33:19 AM
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?

Gravock
Trolling, trolling down the river.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: gravityblock on July 16, 2014, 12:18:49 PM
Trolling, trolling down the river.

It is you who is trolling, trolling down the river and not me.  Where did I say weight is energy as you wrongly and falsely asserted?  You're nothing more than a forum clown trying to misdirect others!

Gravock
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on July 16, 2014, 12:45:46 PM
You are so lost.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on July 19, 2014, 06:29:16 PM
Quote from: profitis
Don't underestimate chinese research pomodoro,they have a coupla trillion dollars loose change lying around
This 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on August 01, 2014, 02:27:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on August 06, 2014, 07:03:43 PM
@sarkeizen.i dare you to build and test one
Since 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.

Then you can look at the Karpen Pile thread and find profits spending weeks and weeks and weeks giving prompordoro endless tweaks to a device that doesn't appear to demonstrate anything.   Then you can ask yourself - how was profits doing anything but bullshitting everyone?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on August 06, 2014, 09:11:39 PM
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.
Quote
I thought not
Thinking does not now, nor I expect ever will be.  Your strong point.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on August 07, 2014, 01:31:07 AM
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...

and here you are seemingly with some puppet doing labwork and...still nothing after weeks and weeks and weeks...
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on August 07, 2014, 01:50:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on August 07, 2014, 05:43:24 AM
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.

Which makes profits's argument bullshit.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on August 07, 2014, 09:45:55 PM
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.

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 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on August 08, 2014, 05:38:08 AM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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
To what end?  To dissuade people from believing Profitis?  I don't really see a line forming in that queue.  To dissuade profitis?  Please. 
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.   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.

The more important point IMHO is that profits claimed that this would be so incredibly easy to demonstrate.  That thesis is already disproved.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on August 08, 2014, 08:12:25 AM
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.
Quote
  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.
Quote
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!
Quote
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.

The more important point IMHO is that profits claimed that this would be so incredibly easy to demonstrate.  That thesis is already disproved.
I think that goes without saying. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on August 08, 2014, 04:47:29 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on August 08, 2014, 05:47:02 PM
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.
Quote

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.
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. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on August 09, 2014, 08:05:34 PM
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.
Quote
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?
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on August 10, 2014, 12:33:50 AM
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.
Quote
  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!
Quote

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. 
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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on August 10, 2014, 01:17:19 AM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.

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".
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on August 10, 2014, 01:46:22 AM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
  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.
Quote
  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.
Quote
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.
Quote

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".
A limit approaching zero is distinct from zero.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on August 10, 2014, 03:01:00 PM
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.
Quote
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. 
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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"?
Quote
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!".
Quote
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
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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on August 10, 2014, 10:42:04 PM
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?
Quote

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.

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"?
Quote

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!".

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.
Quote

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.
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. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on August 20, 2014, 06:45:50 AM
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.
Quote
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.

So by my more objective definition of arrogance.  Isn't it you who are being arrogant here?

Quote
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".
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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?
Quote
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.
Quote
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.

Quote
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on August 20, 2014, 07:02:44 AM
At the third ad hom I just stopped reading.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on August 20, 2014, 02:54:47 PM
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)

I have stated that you used words in ways that are misleading and that you should be more honest and objective and less arrogant.  My argument does not hinge on you being or not being any of these things. :)

That said, if you needed an out.  I do understand how stomping off under the guise of being insulted might be a good way to avoid dissonance. :)  It's a little interesting if this is not the case that you're kind of implicitly claiming that I am so amazing at being insulting in a single post that you couldn't complete reading it.  Yet you have endured many insulting posts from other folk here. :)

The upshot of my post is:  In order to rationally do something you must have decided or assumed that it is worth doing.  So assuming that somehow you didn't accidentally perform an experiment.  Deciding to do something, like all decisions is either informed by data or it isn't.  If it is and the data says otherwise then that fits my definition of arrogant. 

Your comment about an "arbitrary confidence interval" should convince you of my point.  You appear to be saying there that, to you not only does the amount of data against a useful result not have ANY control over you performing an experiment (assuming unlimited resources) but you don't believe any amount of empirical data would be sufficient to change your mind.  Surely that meets even your own internal definition of arrogant.  Holding on to your own belief without any regard for the data?

Of course you can make up any number of other reasons for doing something that fit your outcome but I'm surprised that they sound reasonable to you.  For example sure you can fabricate that this was done for entertainment purposes, or for the education of profitis or for people who want an education in how to do labwork.  However by the same token you would have to believe that it's okay to say "This is a perfectly useful car" even though it can't move an inch.  When questioned you can then say: "Well it's perfectly useful for teaching someone what an engine block looks like" and expect people to think that the first statement wasn't misleading.  In fact you could point to a cinderblock and say "This is a perfectly useful car" and confabulate some explanation like: "It's perfectly useful for instructing people on how to construct a car from a cinderblock".

Aside: Philip has missed his deadline in Australia.  Let's see if he makes it here.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on August 20, 2014, 05:44:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on August 20, 2014, 06:03:52 PM
Sarkeizen I have no more goodwill to offer you.  If you think that constitutes a win, then so be it. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on August 20, 2014, 06:59:43 PM
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?

Now the answer to all of the above may be "yes" but don't I - rationally speaking - have to consider other hypotheses?  For example it seems pretty clear that resources not withstanding you think it's always better to have more data than less data as something of a core belief.  So isn't my argument asking you to give up a core belief?  If so, isn't it plausible that such a thing is going to be harder than simply declaring you're offended and exiting the conversation?

While there clearly are a myriad of possibilities just weighing those two seems like both are at least somewhat plausible.

Worth noting, that if this is all about my use of "arrogant" and "be more honest".  It might be useful to see where you implied the same thing about myself and others before you consider it reason to deplete your goodwill.  While your implication doesn't bother me.  I and a number of other people I find do take it as licence to express the same thing about you.  Which might keep you from shutting down a conversation in the future.



Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Madebymonkeys on August 22, 2014, 12:23:29 AM
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.

No idea. I had a look at quentron.com and, strangely, it has a bit of a Japanese call-girl thing about it. I can't read Japanese but clicking a link or two at random proved interesting!

Philip - What was/is the announcement?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on August 22, 2014, 12:36:08 AM
Philip - What was/is the announcement?
There's another thread called...HABTEC I think.  It has the current manifestation of his crazy.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on September 20, 2014, 09:13:26 AM
Quenco's are edging there way onto the scene.here's a quenco based on continual cyclic hydrogen spillover: http://revolution-green.com/paradigm-change/
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on September 25, 2014, 01:11:00 AM
Quenco's are edging there way onto the scene.here's a quenco based on continual cyclic hydrogen spillover
I've heard him talk on his PN diode nonsense. 

It's the usual problem.  He presents a device which sounds simple - the diode driven oscillator - the way he explains it it should be simple enough for anyone to build.  However he immediately jumps to fabricating this at the nano scale.  Which should tell you that there exists no simple easily built device which would unambiguously demonstrate the principle.

As soon as you are there the argument becomes which is more likely.  That 2nd law is wrong or could he have perhaps missed something.  Smart money is on the later.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on September 26, 2014, 11:26:42 AM
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 lab
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on September 26, 2014, 11:09:40 PM
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 lab
Either 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on September 26, 2014, 11:18:26 PM
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 lab
If 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.

As prospective Second Law violating devices, diodes are a lousy prospect.  Diodes do however make good RF detectors.  The local radio station, Wi-Fi router, cell phone etc are not Second Law violations.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on September 27, 2014, 12:01:39 AM
Yeah right @mark E.that's why sheehan is allowed to mess around with multi-million dollar lab equipment,to tell us shit.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 08, 2014, 02:02:38 AM
Math@sarkeizen. So we warm a karpen to accelerate corrosion..96500 coulombs required to corrode 65g gold. 96.5seconds for an amp to dissolve 65mg gold.111days for 10microamps to dissolve 65mg gold. a day and a half for 10microamps to dissolve 1mg/cm2 thai gold leaf.a day and a half of warming  to rule out corrosion.a day and a half..what will we see
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 20, 2014, 04:26:07 PM
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. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 21, 2014, 08:28:23 AM
A day and a half @sarkeizen.a day and a half.a book will be written with that title later on by somebody
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on October 22, 2014, 02:55:05 AM
A day and a half @sarkeizen.a day and a half.a book will be written with that title later on by somebody
but it likely won't provide a formal argument for 2LOT violations either.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on October 23, 2014, 07:49:37 PM
If it begins with the words, 'a day and a half' it most certainly will
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 10, 2014, 03:03:06 PM
If it begins with the words, 'a day and a half' it most certainly will
Yawn.  Go back to faking knowledge about medicine.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on December 10, 2014, 04:02:06 PM
As Mr. Hardcastle has abandoned his www.quentron.com website and apparently withdrawn his claims to violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, then maybe this thread should be left to rest in peace.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 10, 2014, 04:46:51 PM
apparently withdrawn his claims to violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Call me curious...where did he do this?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on December 10, 2014, 06:04:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on December 10, 2014, 06:12:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on December 10, 2014, 06:54:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 15, 2015, 11:30:24 AM
'Epicatalytic thermal diode
WO 2014194138 A1
RESUMO
An Epicatalytic Thermal Diode (ETD) includes one or
more ETD cells. Each cell comprises first and second
surfaces with a cavity between them, which contains
a gas that is epicatalytically active with respect to the
pair of surfaces. The surfaces chemically interact
with the gas such that the gas dissociates at a faster
rate proximate to the first surface than it does
proximate to the second surface. Thus, a steady-state
temperature differential between the first surface
and the second surface is created and maintained. In
various applications, multiple ETD cells are
connected in series and/or parallel.
DESCRIÇÃO (O texto do OCR pode conter erros)
EPICATALYTIC THERMAL DIODE
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
[0001] This application claims the benefit of U.S.
Provisional Patent Application No. 61/824,419,
entitled "Epicatalytic Thermal Diode," filed on May 29,
2013 ; U.S. Provisional Patent Application No.
61/828,421, entitled "Epicatalytic Thermal Diode,"
filed on May 29, 2013; and U.S. Patent Application No.
14/289,322, entitled "Epicatalytic Thermal Diode, filed
on May 28, 2014, all of which are hereby
incorporated by reference in their entirety.'
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 15, 2015, 11:45:37 AM
'[0070] Based on energy scaling arguments, it is
inferred that a steady-state temperature differential
can be established and maintained at room
temperature. Chemical equilibrium constants (Keq) -
upon which all standard chemistry is based - depend
on temperature and reaction Gibbs free energy (Keq
= exp[-G/RT]), to which the dominant contribution is
usually the bond energy for the reaction. In such
cases, the characteristic energy scale (φ) for chemical
equilibrium is given by the ratio of bond energy to
thermal energy, i.e., φ = AG/RT. Thus, weaker bonds
require commensurately lower temperatures to
achieve similar levels of dissociation and desorption.
[0071] Hydrogen bonds (-0.5 eV) are typically an
order of magnitude weaker than covalent bonds (~5
eV), and van der Waals bonds are typically an order
of magnitude weaker still (-0.05 eV). Thus, because
covalent epicatalysis of H 2 operates well at -2000 K, it
follows that epicatalytic dissociation of hydrogen-
bonded and van der Waals-bonded dimers should
occur at or below room temperature. For example,
because the ratio φ (4.5 eV/2000 K), where 4.5 eV is
the approximate bond strength of a Hydrogen dimer,
is approximately equal to the ratio φ (0.5 eV/220 K),
where 220 K is well below room temperature, it can
be inferred that a Hydrogen bonded dimer can easily
exhibit epicatalytic behavior at room temperature in
the presence of an appropriate pair of surfaces.'
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on April 15, 2015, 12:09:28 PM
Nothing about that says that the entropy decreases.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 15, 2015, 12:11:48 PM
Nothing needs to.I don't think they would get their patent if they said that.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 15, 2015, 12:17:46 PM
Notice the words 'steady-state'
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on April 15, 2015, 01:12:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: Philip Hardcastle on April 15, 2015, 01:40:06 PM
MarkE,


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.


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.


For the record I say I have never been more confident of my position and my work.


I have and continue to ever more effectively violate the Second Law of TD.


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.


This forum is not a place to discuss my work and the science as it is populated by too many vindictive trolls and fools.


My work will be proved by product, not by words.


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.







Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on April 15, 2015, 01:59:33 PM
MarkE,


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.
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?
Quote


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.
It is charming that you've stopped by to share this unprovked personal attack.  Do you feel better now?
Quote


For the record I say I have never been more confident of my position and my work.
That's nice.  Where's the data?
Quote


I have and continue to ever more effectively violate the Second Law of TD.
Again:  Where's the data?
Quote


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.
Again:  Where's the data?
Quote


This forum is not a place to discuss my work and the science as it is populated by too many vindictive trolls and fools.
So, what is your purpose in coming here today?
Quote


My work will be proved by product, not by words.
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.
Quote


I applaud Profitis and pomodoro who are to my mind two people who at least give some efforts to discuss science and experimentation.
Pomodoro has done a fantastic job of humoring Profitis' claimed ideas.  Alas it came to naught.
Quote


To all the nice people here, hi.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 15, 2015, 02:02:13 PM
Christmas came early.
I had decided some time ago when  constantly attacked by Sarkeizen
It'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.
Quote
cheap uneducated shots rather than contributing anything material.
How is MarkE's position "uneducated" when you admit that science overwhelmingly favors his position?
Quote
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.
Quote
Of course working as a micro team on a massive breakthrough takes time
How did this become "of course" from "Be ready to eat your hat on <insert one of a good fifteen specific dates>"? 
Quote
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.
Quote
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. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 15, 2015, 08:02:55 PM
Mark E'Engines run at steady-state until they run out of fuel.'

I have asked you all through this thread like a child to the teacher,'what fuel is consumed here'.you have failed to give an answer.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 15, 2015, 08:07:37 PM
Mark E'A steady supply of gas is required and consumed.'

You have failed to tell us what fuel and what consumption. highly irregular for a scientist who supports the known laws of physics.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 15, 2015, 08:14:21 PM
Sarkeizen'My original comments where about information
theory.'

What is it you want to know.speak in terms that all who watch can understand including children. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 15, 2015, 08:31:36 PM
Sarkeizen'My original comments where about information theory.'

What is it you want to know.speak in terms that all who watch can understand including children.
Information theory and complexity theory both have something to say about Philips alleged quentronium. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 15, 2015, 09:03:55 PM
Sarkeizen'information theory and complexity theory both have
something to say about Philips alleged quentronium.
:)'

What does it have to say about chaos and order and their spontaneity.keep it simple for viewers
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 15, 2015, 09:19:26 PM
'Mark E'Engines run at steady-state until they run out
of fuel.'

An equilibrium is also a steady-state.is an running gasoline engine at equilibrium.no it isn't.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 15, 2015, 09:21:51 PM
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. :)

I did mention that Philips device, like all sorts of devices can be used to do computation.  It also very much looks like it would provide the ability to perform some operations in O(1) time. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 15, 2015, 09:36:29 PM
Sarkeizen'No idea what those terms mean.'

Because your an idiot.viewers can understand what those terms mean but you can't

Sarkeizen'I did mention that Philips device, like all sorts of
devices can be used to do computation.  It also very
much looks like it would provide the ability to
perform some operations in O(1) time.'


if it can power your computer then obviously it can yes
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 15, 2015, 09:41:36 PM
Because your an idiot.viewers can understand what those terms mean but you can't
I fully admit that I am not very good at speaking troll.  So unless you can translate I can't respond. :)
Quote
if it can power your computer then obviously it can yes
Not what I'm saying.  It is a computer (but not necessarily a universal one) in and of itself. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 15, 2015, 10:05:42 PM
Sarkeizen:'I fully admit that I am not very good at speaking troll.'

Don't lie :)

Sarkeizen'Not what I'm saying.  It is a computer (but not
necessarily a universal one) in and of itself.'

If its got a maxwell demon in it yes true
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 15, 2015, 10:13:46 PM
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. :)
Quote
If its got a maxwell demon in it yes true
No special requirements.  It is claimed that it sorts molecules by energy.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on April 15, 2015, 10:27:55 PM
Mark E'A steady supply of gas is required and consumed.'

You have failed to tell us what fuel and what consumption. highly irregular for a scientist who supports the known laws of physics.
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 15, 2015, 10:43:03 PM
Sarkeizen'That
would save a lot of time considering how 90% of all
of your posts are just dancing around simple
questions like that. :)'

You mean like dancing around demands for an statements' assumption-status instead of arguing mano-a-mano :)

Sarkeizen'No special requirements.  It is claimed that it sorts
molecules by energy.'

Its more correct to say it sorts energy by molecule.a whole system acts together to become a demon eg the karpen pile will sort heat from cold via a difference in potential that is switched back and forth at will.YOU do the switching,it does the work.since it does the work it can be programmed to switch itself on/off.like an independant computer yes
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 15, 2015, 10:50:22 PM
Mark E'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.'

Lol.vasilescu did exactly that for 60years and counting brother
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 15, 2015, 10:56:55 PM
You mean like dancing around demands for an statements' assumption-status
Again 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. :)
Quote
Its more correct to say it sorts energy by molecule.
Philip's diagrams show energetic molecules being separated from less energetic molecules. :) :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 15, 2015, 11:23:28 PM
 Sarkeizen' 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. :)'

Did anybody understand this? Crickets..quit dancing mr sarkeizen and start arguing

Sarkeizen:'Philip's diagrams show energetic molecules being
separated from less energetic molecules. :) :)'

Yes his device can be viewed that way,a maxwell demon standing high up with a basket catching the bouncy-balls that spring highest.or it can be viewed as a reversable contact-potential in which case it is sorting energy and not bouncy molecules.again,YOU switch it on/off or it is programmed to do this itself.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 15, 2015, 11:32:55 PM
Did anybody understand this? Crickets..quit dancing mr sarkeizen and start arguing
I'll clarify
You were asked for the assumptions for your argument...you didn't provide them.
Before that you were asked IF your argument had assumptions...you spent a long time before seeming to claim that it did.
Before that you were asked to provide a formal argument...you spent almost a year avoiding that.

I'm happy to clarify further if you wish. :)
Quote
Yes his device can be viewed that way
That'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. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 15, 2015, 11:44:41 PM
Sarkeizen 'I'll clarify
You were asked for the assumptions for your
argument...you didn't provide them.
Before that you were asked IF your argument had
assumptions...you spent a long time before seeming
to claim that it did.
Before that you were asked to provide a formal
argument...you spent almost a year avoiding that.
I'm happy to clarify further if you wish. :)'

Say what?,put on your boxing gloves man and fight. be a man mr sarkeizen :)

Sarkeizen:'That'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. :)'

Ok ok so let's go with the maxwell basketball star then geez.now what? Keep it going mr sarkeizen
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 15, 2015, 11:57:07 PM
Say what?
Please point out the word you don't understand. :)


Quote
Ok ok so let's go with the maxwell basketball star then
Are you agreeing that Philip is claiming his device sorts high-energy molecules from lower energy molecules. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 16, 2015, 12:23:51 AM
Sarkeizen'Please point out the word you don't understand. :)'

You mean the whole paragraph.I doubt anyone but you understood it and I'm beginning to doubt that even you understand it.whatever it means,it did no damage to my statement in the other thread.

Sarkeizen'Are you agreeing that Philip is claiming his device
sorts high-energy molecules from lower energy
molecules. :)'

For the sake of argument yeah sure :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 16, 2015, 12:28:35 AM
Sarkeizen'Are you agreeing that Philip is claiming his
device
sorts high-energy molecules from lower energy
molecules. :)'

Are you petrified that I might not agree? What would happen to your forthcoming argument if I were to disagree?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 16, 2015, 12:50:14 AM
Quote from: Me
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?"
Quote
For the sake of argument yeah sure :)
So could the same principle be used to sort data?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on April 16, 2015, 12:56:46 AM
Mark E'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.'

Lol.vasilescu did exactly that for 60years and counting brother
Are you powering your house with a Karpen pile yet?  Why not?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 16, 2015, 01:34:41 AM
Sarkeizen'Yawn. Do you understand the sentence: "Your mom
asked you to eat some cake?"'

Yes if you understand the sentence,"IT DOES NOT DAMAGE THE STATEMENT".demands for assumption-status do not damage a persons statement in science.neither do demands for claim-status.neither do demands for argumentative-status.especially in physics/science because all scientific statements based on textbook protocol are objective not subjective.

Sarkeizen:'So could the same principle be used to sort data?'

it can only sort data according  this/that.two bits of information.it can be programmed to spell someones name in morse code by switching itself on/off in sequence but it must be programmed to do so.its a self-powered switch that's all it is.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 16, 2015, 01:50:04 AM
mark E:'Are you powering your house with a Karpen pile yet?
Why not?'

Energy density issues lol.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 16, 2015, 01:58:58 AM
Quote from: me
Yawn. Do you understand the sentence: "Your mom asked you to eat some cake?"'
Yes
Then you also understand -by substitution- what "You were asked to tell me your assumptions" means.
Quote
it can only sort data according  this/that.two bits of information.
You don't think that bits can be aggregated? :)

(also "two bits" is four things not "this/that" - just saying that you know about as much about information theory as a rug :) )
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 16, 2015, 02:19:34 AM
Sarkeizen:'Then you also understand -by substitution- what "You
were asked to tell me your assumptions" means.

I was asked to tell you my assumptions in the middle of an argument.its like me asking you for 50dollars while I'm setting your house on fire.you won't give it,naturally.this is the standard international fighting protocol and you want to break the rules.I won't break them for you.

Sarkeizen:'You don't think that bits can be aggregated? :)'


What do you mean. You meannnn self-grow?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 16, 2015, 02:45:57 AM
I was asked to tell you my assumptions
To what you claim is an argument which is formal AND compelling.  Right?

Quote
What do you mean. You meannnn self-grow?
Put together with another device to create a device with more bits. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on April 16, 2015, 03:15:12 AM
Mark E'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.'

Lol.vasilescu did exactly that for 60years and counting brother
Allegedly 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on April 16, 2015, 03:17:42 AM
mark E:'Are you powering your house with a Karpen pile yet?
Why not?'

Energy density issues lol.
There is a density issue alright.  And in that you have destroyed your own claims.  Thanks for playing again.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on April 16, 2015, 03:48:16 AM
I have a question!
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.
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 16, 2015, 03:54:11 AM
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?
Quote
Now that there is a room temperature "Maxwell Demon"
To what do you refer?
Quote
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on April 16, 2015, 04:03:04 AM
Sarky,
You might want to step off the high horse and check the ground just to make sure it's still there.
 
I thought I asked just a simple question.
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 16, 2015, 04:23:31 AM
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?

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on April 16, 2015, 05:51:38 AM
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.

AND.....

I was quite sure you couldn't answer that one simple question.

My book is now closed!

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 16, 2015, 06:03:08 AM
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.
Quote
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?"
Quote
My book is now closed!
I think you mean "mind". ;)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on April 16, 2015, 07:23:45 AM
I have a question!
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.
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 16, 2015, 09:45:18 AM
Sarkeizen:'To what you claim is an argument which is formal
AND compelling.  Right?'

Again you are requesting statement-status in a combat situation.you won't get it from me mr sarkeizen.you have to attack the scientific statement head-on using textbooks.

Sarkeizen:'Put together with another device to create a device
with more bits. :)'

Same as a computer yes.you have one switch that gives such n such amount bits now you can have two switches that give additional bits.by the way,a single two-bit can spontaneously grow into a larger magnitude two-bit yes.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 16, 2015, 09:56:51 AM
Mark E:'Allegedly 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.'

Gold and platinum or nickel and carbon or any components from his patent are widely available for independant evaluation.any sealed karpen or karpen-related pile will lose exactly zero% capacity over ten years.infact they gain capacity after total discharge.very unlike a zinc-carbon.you can check all this out.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 16, 2015, 10:09:04 AM
Mark E:'There is a density issue alright.  And in that you have
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on April 16, 2015, 10:21:42 AM
Mark E:'There is a density issue alright.  And in that you have
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.
What 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 16, 2015, 01:44:31 PM
Quote from: me
To what you claim is an argument which is formal AND compelling.  Right?'
Again you are requesting
That 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. ) :)
Quote from: me
Put together with another device to create a device with more bits. :)'
Quote
Same as a computer yes.
So you can, given sufficient materials create something that sorts strings of bits of whatever size you want.
Quote
a single two-bit can spontaneously grow into a larger magnitude two-bit yes.
I told you.  I don't speak troll. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 16, 2015, 02:18:38 PM
Mark E:What you said was that you don't power your home with a Karpen cell or cells due to insufficient energy density.'

Precisely.I've only got a few milliwatts-watts of frei energie here at the moment.in absolute violation of kelvin statement.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 16, 2015, 02:27:16 PM
Sarkeizen:'Shall I dig up the quotes (probably the answer is "yes" here since you're just trying to delay this. ) :)

On one condition.those quotes have to promote damage to the excessively objective scientific statement that I made in that particular thread.

Sarkeizen:'So you can, given sufficient materials create something that sorts strings of bits of whatever size you want.'

Yes and more.for example if I cut one in half it becomes two sets of two-bits information computers.


Sarkeizen:'I told you.  I don't speak troll. :)'

Let's wait and see :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 16, 2015, 03:28:06 PM
Quote from: me
Shall I dig up the quotes (probably the answer is "yes" here since you're just trying to delay this. )
On one condition
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. :)
Quote
have to promote damage to the excessively objective scientific
Again, I don't speak troll.  So that's just gibberish to me. If you want to try again use standard English usage. :)
Quote from: me
So you can, given sufficient materials create something that sorts strings of bits of whatever size you want.
Quote
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.
Quote from: me
I told you.  I don't speak troll. :)
Quote
Let's wait and see :)
You just admitted that YOU speak troll.  Awesome. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 16, 2015, 03:46:49 PM
Sarkeizen:'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.viewers are getting impatient with your dancing,around it.


Sarkeizen:'Again, I don't speak troll.'

Lies

Sarkeizen:' use standard English usage. :)'

Damage my statement from that thread or accept defeat

Sarkeizen:'
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 please


Sarkeizen:'You just admitted that YOU speak troll.  Awesome. :)'

No I didnt
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 16, 2015, 04:18:35 PM
Quote from: me
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.

Here's the first one.
Sarkeizen:'Are you saying that your argument is compelling'

Yes
Do you agree that you are saying in the above quote that your argument is compelling here. 

Quote from: me
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.
Quote
english please
Algorithms 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. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 16, 2015, 06:11:07 PM
Sarkeizen:'Then you shouldn't have a problem agreeing with it.'

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.

-Sarkeizen:'
Do you agree that you are saying your argument is compelling here.' 

Whatever it is it isn't damaged.

Sarkeizen:'Algorithms 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. :)'

The device's demon sorts instantaneously.the quantum sorting is instantaneous hot/cold.small numbers sorting or large numbers sorting are all instantaneously divided into hot/cold at the demon surface.nothing slow about this
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 16, 2015, 06:50:38 PM
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. :)
Quote from: me
Do you agree that you are saying your argument is compelling here.' 
Quote
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? :)
Quote
The device's demon sorts instantaneously.the quantum sorting is instantaneous hot/cold.
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 to compute.  That's the KNOWN PROVEN upper bound for quantum speed up in algorithms.   The name of the theorem is BBBV and I've posted a link to the paper way back in this thread.  You can go read it. :)  Hence it's somewhere between terribly unlikely to impossible that Philip's device works since it's necessary for it to use quantum effects.

Considering that 80% of the words that you post to me are you trying to AVOID actually making your position clear.  What I call Used Car Salesman tactics.  I was pretty sure that I could get you to take the opposite position simply because you are pretty much making up what you say as you go along.  Which is probably why you can't actually take on a position that isn't just nonsense speech.  Push one way...you push back the other and now you've landed on your ass. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 16, 2015, 07:10:30 PM
Sarkeizen:'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 this when THE STATEMENT REMAINS UNMOLESTED don't be silly mr sarkeizen.the fact that it remains totaly and I mean absofucking-lutely unmolested is evidence that you are weak.

Sarkeizen:'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.


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 16, 2015, 08:16:36 PM
Quote from: me
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.  :)
Quote from: Want to buy a 1974 pinto?
How can you say this
It'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.
Quote from: me
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.'
Quote from: She only drove it on weekends
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.  :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on April 17, 2015, 12:39:19 AM
Mark E:What you said was that you don't power your home with a Karpen cell or cells due to insufficient energy density.'

Precisely.I've only got a few milliwatts-watts of frei energie here at the moment.in absolute violation of kelvin statement.
You just keep killing yourself and you don't see it.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 17, 2015, 07:55:13 AM
Sarkeizen'algorithmic proofs are independent of how
the computer is organized.'

 you're saying that a computer cannot programme itself right?.a maxwell demon's life is dependant upon its fuel supply mr sarkeizen,just like an ant.it burns its fuel and computes which way the fuels exhaust will be managed,hot this way/cold thaddaway,TWO bits information.it was programmed by its inventor to do this or ocassionally it can be accidentaly programmed to do this. It can grow smarter if it has neighbor demons to communicate with and if they by chance happen to be possitioned/assembled as a team. The only dif between a two-bit maxwell and a two-bit computer is its fuel does not need to have a potential difference within it.it is a potential difference.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on April 17, 2015, 08:31:29 AM
profitis you are completely lost in Sarkeizen's statements.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 17, 2015, 08:34:41 AM
Mark E:'You just keep killing yourself and you don't see it.'

Yeah giving too much valuable info away and getting nothing but crap in return.phil is right its stupid.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 17, 2015, 08:37:35 AM
Mark E'profitis you are completely lost in Sarkeizen's
statements.'

He's essentially saying a computer cannot programme itself.what do you think he's saying mr E
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on April 17, 2015, 10:57:05 AM
Mark E'profitis you are completely lost in Sarkeizen's
statements.'

He's essentially saying a computer cannot programme itself.what do you think he's saying mr E
If you think that his statement: 
Quote
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."


even deals with self-modifying code then you suffer really serious reading comprehension deficiencies.  An algorithmic proof establishes that a given algorithm yields an intended manipulation of input information.  The algorithm may be implemented on any suitable machinery. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 17, 2015, 12:20:09 PM
Mark E:'The algorithm may be implemented on any suitable machinery.'

 aha so it is a programme.the hardcastle device doesn't conflict with this as it is already programmed beforehand...to sort out energy.the only difference between the hardcastle device and a regular computer is you don't plug it in.there's no conflict with mr sarkeizen's 'algorythms'.none whatsoever.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 17, 2015, 12:37:36 PM
Mark E'An algorithmic proof establishes that a given algorithm yields an intended manipulation of input information.'

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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 17, 2015, 01:42:23 PM
Quote from: me
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)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 17, 2015, 01:49:49 PM
Mark E'An algorithmic proof establishes that a given algorithm yields an intended manipulation of input information.'

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
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. :)

Are you ready to say that you have no idea what you're talking about?  Or do you want to keep picking words out of sentences you don't understand and use them in a completely different way in hopes that you can either distract from or dismiss the question at hand?   Seriously go back to scamming people about vitamin supplements or whatever it is you do. Used car salesmen like yourself are pretty useless in terms of adding to the body of science.   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on April 17, 2015, 06:58:15 PM
Mark E'An algorithmic proof establishes that a given algorithm yields an intended manipulation of input information.'

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
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 17, 2015, 09:18:10 PM
@sarkeizen:from wiki:'Applied to the Maxwell's demon/Szilard engine
scenario, this suggests that it might be possible to
"read" the state of the particle into a computing
apparatus with no entropy cost; but only if the
apparatus has already been SET into a known state,
rather than being in a thermalised state of
uncertainty. To SET (or RESET) the apparatus into
this state will cost all the entropy that can be saved
by knowing the state of Szilard's particle.'

This is all bullshit BECAUSE we are dealing with switching between a quantum energy requirement and a non-quantum energy requirement.those two requirements are juxtaposed and in opposition and seperate to each other.they don't CROSS LINES..put simply: switching a quenco on satisfies its quantum energy requirements at the expense of its kelvin kinetic(non-quantum) requirements.switching a quenco off satisfies its non-quantum kelvin(kinetic) requirements at the cost of its quantum(electrostatochemical) requirements.the quantum(electrostatic) world is see-sawing the non-quantum(kinetic energy) world because they are interswitchable.  this quenco system is compatible with your proof because the following algorithmic two-bits switching can effect huge sums of particles and hence energy differences each time the switch is thrown: quantum/nonquantum.it takes DOWNhill energy requirements to switch this switch,bothways brother. You neglected to bring ENERGY changes into your argument and as you know info and energy go hand-in-hand.you didnot address energy changes at all.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 17, 2015, 09:26:21 PM
@sarkeizen:from wiki:'Applied to the Maxwell's demon/Szilard engine
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? :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 17, 2015, 09:30:25 PM
Ya but how can you ADRESS an energy-related system without adressing energy changes? Don't be crazy mr sarkeizen
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 17, 2015, 09:38:21 PM
Ya but how can you ADRESS an
Either 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.

This is how algorithmic computer science is done.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 17, 2015, 09:49:59 PM
Sarkeizen:'either this device sorts, or it doesn't.  You said it did.'

It sorts energy requirements.energy must be brought into the equation as we are dealing with energy.this is why I don't like the old mechanical demon representation as it can be misleading and is unscientific.but let me think of a way to put it into terms for your satisfaction
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 17, 2015, 09:55:25 PM
Quote from: me
either this device sorts, or it doesn't.  You said it did
It sorts energy requirements. energy must be brought into the equation
Absolutely 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 17, 2015, 10:04:08 PM
Sarkeizen:'Absolutely not.'

Let me get this straight..you want me to argue for an energy-related information device without adressing energy? And at the same time you want to argue against an energy related information device without adressing energy? Are you crazy sarkeizen?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 17, 2015, 10:33:16 PM
Let me get this straight..you want me to argue for an energy-related information device without adressing energy?

So I took my Banana Sr. computer out of storage.  It's a banana related computer - it's like a regular computer except that it stores it's information by placing/removing quantities of bananas in boxes instead of placing/removing quantities in digital memory and reads information by counting bananas in those same boxes again in lieu of reading quantities from digital memory.  So you claim that in order to talk  about an algorithm running on a banana related computer I absolutely have to discuss the qualities of bananas.   This, of course means that you are bananas. :)

If your assertion is true and it's ABSOLUTELY and ALWAYS AND FOREVER NECESSARY to know about some quality of the information.  Then you should be able to tell me the qualities of the bananas that I need to keep in mind when running this machine.  If not then you agree that it is NOT NECESSARY to know about the way information is encoded in order to discuss it's use in algorithms. :)

QED.  Loser.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on April 18, 2015, 06:28:12 AM
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!
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.

So I must agree, it's bullshit and that theorem is proven wrong.
It only takes one instance to prove a theory wrong.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 18, 2015, 06:38:27 AM
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. :)
Quote
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. :)
Quote
It only takes one instance to prove a theory wrong.
a) A theorem is different than a theory.  A theorem is a mathematical proof.
b) I'm pretty sure that considering you are incapable of restating the theorem usefully in your own words.  Excludes you from the list of people who are capable of presenting a counter-example.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 18, 2015, 09:18:15 AM
Sarkeizen:'If your assertion is true and it's ABSOLUTELY and
ALWAYS AND FOREVER NECESSARY to know about
some quality of the information.  Then you should be
able to tell me the qualities of the bananas that I
need to keep in mind when running this machine.'

Your banana-bytes only function in 3-d reality(off-paper) if there's energy involved mr sarkeizen.we have to adapt a dynamic state to your desired photographic needs.  a quenco demon can be on-off at the same time same as a karpen demon.this happens under constant-current steady-states.this an example of wave-particle duality at work where a demon can be sorting hot from cold at the same time.so the recognition is infact instantaneous.how does this affect your bananas then mr sarkeizen,a dual-bit recognition,simultaneously.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 18, 2015, 09:29:48 AM
'ABSOLUTELY and
ALWAYS AND FOREVER NECESSARY to know about
some quality of the information.'

This isnot necessary for a demon hovvering between the quantum(wave-like) and non-quantum(kinetic particle-like) worlds. Uncertainty principle applies here and the demon acts on instinct rather than calculation and makes a two-bit sort simultaneously.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 18, 2015, 11:10:05 AM
Sarkeizen:'
because you seem to think this has something to do
with "requiring energy".  Which it doesn't, which you
would know if you read blah-blah etc'

This is your problem here.you want to use a non-energy argument against an energy device
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 18, 2015, 12:51:53 PM
Sarkeizen:'ABSOLUTELY and
ALWAYS AND FOREVER NECESSARY to know about
some quality of the information.  Then you should be
able to tell me the qualities of the bananas'

The demon is slave to the energy-demands of the quantum and non-quantum interswitchable worlds.the demon is just a passive dead switch,it does not need to recognize,compute,think or calculate.we don't need quality-status of your bananas
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 18, 2015, 03:00:50 PM
Quote from: me
'ABSOLUTELY and ALWAYS AND FOREVER NECESSARY to know about some quality of the information.'
This isnot necessary
Then 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. :) 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 18, 2015, 03:20:34 PM
Sarkeizen''ABSOLUTELY and ALWAYS AND
FOREVER NECESSARY to know about some quality of
the information.'

Is this necessary for algorithms,because its not necessary for philip's device.hence philip's device works.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 18, 2015, 03:36:20 PM
Is this necessary for algorithms
The 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.

If you don't believe me read the paper. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 18, 2015, 05:41:51 PM
Sarkeizen:'requires no assumptions '

Same with the demon so where's the problem
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: memoryman on April 18, 2015, 07:13:15 PM
Sarkeizen: re your post 2972.
“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.”
So, your statement itself is incorrect
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 18, 2015, 07:39:39 PM
Quote from: me
requires no assumptions
What I actually wrote was that the BBBV requires no assumptions about the way things are stored.
Same with the demon so where's the problem
So Philips device requires that it uses quantum effects to work.  BBBV says it can't and do what you say it does.

Hence Philip's device can not work or you have to fess up and say that you're wrong about the device sorting instantaneously.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 18, 2015, 07:48:52 PM
Quote from: me
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.”
So, your statement itself is incorrect
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 not to put too fine a point on it.  Why do you think that my statement is incorrect. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 18, 2015, 08:42:09 PM
Sarkeizen:'Hence Philip's device can not work or you have to
fess up and say that you're wrong about the device
sorting instantaneously.'

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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 18, 2015, 09:10:28 PM
Talking about speed.Here's something of interest:

(Nanowerk News) Switches are devices
that are omnipresent in computers as they
are crucial to manipulate information
encoded as bits. To greatly improve the
speed with which information is
processed, much work is being done
worldwide to realize optical switches that
control information encoded as light
pulses. To date, the speed of optical
switches is limited by the properties of the
underlying materials, but not by the speed
of light.
Now scientists from the MESA+ Institute
for Nanotechnology at the University of
Twente and the FOM-Institute Amolf in
Amsterdam in the Netherlands, and the
Institute for Nanoscience and Cryogenics
(CEA/INAC) in Grenoble in France have
managed to switch-on and switch-off a
semiconductor optical cavity within a
world-record short time of less than 1
picosecond, or one millionth of a millionth
second. The results will soon be published
in the leading American journal Applied
Physics Letters ("Ultimate fast optical
switching of a planar microcavity in the
telecom wavelength range " ), and are
expected to yield ultrafast optical data
communication, tiny on-chip light sources
and lasers, and perhaps even switches for
quantum bits of information.


Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: memoryman on April 18, 2015, 09:50:14 PM
sarkeizen, YOU stated: " a) A theorem is different than a theory.  A theorem is a mathematical proof."
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).
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 18, 2015, 11:53:01 PM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 18, 2015, 11:57:44 PM
sarkeizen, YOU stated: " a) A theorem is different than a theory.  A theorem is a mathematical proof."
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?  :)

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: memoryman on April 19, 2015, 12:21:08 AM
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?  :)

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.
a simple "yes" or "no" may suffice for you; you did not say that it 'may refer to' but 'is'.
Aside: You assumed that I relied on Wikipedia; wrong again. I can give you other sources. Do YOU get to make up definitions?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on April 19, 2015, 01:35:59 AM
sarkeizen, YOU stated: " a) A theorem is different than a theory.  A theorem is a mathematical proof."
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 theorem is more than a mere statement.  It is a statement that has been proven.   

If we want to get really stick up the chair pedantic it is incorrect to call a theorem a mathematical proof.  It is not the proof proper.  It is the result of a mathematical proof. 

ETA: Coffee is for proof closers.  Whatever Sarkeizen may or may not be, he/she is definitely not a dull knife.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 19, 2015, 02:18:58 AM
Somehow over the course of my life I adopted the idea that words are defined by their use.  The way people use the term "theorem" is interesting.  While I agree the most common usage is referencing a statement.  However people - even mathematicians - do use it to reference the proof itself.  To wit people often say "X theorem proved that..." clearly the statement (even a proved one) is not the thing doing the proving.

Semantics aside if memoryman had actually took a few seconds to think about the context of my statement the objection seems even less relevant.  Lumen implies that a theorem and a theory are the same in the sense that a single observation disproves it.  While I might quibble on that statement itself as it implies that observations are never in error.  It's especially wrongheaded when you compare it with something like a proof.  If you were to observe something which runs counter to a proof it's far more likely that either your observation or interpretation is incorrect and switching from "theorem" meaning "proof" to "mathematically proved statement" doesn't alter that. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 19, 2015, 08:35:18 AM
Sarkeizen:'Are you saying that Philip's machine can't sort?'

It reacts,the result is a sort.react-sort in that sequence and only ever in that sequence.in the same way that throwing ammonium nitrate crystals into water causes it to cool,react(ionization/hydration)-cool(temperature drop below ambient). Please note that while these local (earthly) demons are react in such a way as to result in local entropy reduction the sun's entropy increases much more.nothing wrong with the 2lot,except kelvin statement.like holding a bucket under a waterfall and spontaneously catching some h2o.no big deal
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 19, 2015, 03:41:36 PM
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. :)

Also YOUR argument appeared to be "'a statement is ALL a theorem is" which only requires a single reasonable example of an alternate use to falsify.  Since you appear to implicitly agree that if I had said "may refer to" would have made my sentence correct.  You agree that your original argument was wrong. :)  Feel free to squirm on this a bit if it makes you feel better. :)
Quote
Aside: You assumed that I relied on Wikipedia
It seems likely.
Quote
I can give you other sources.
Sources for what?  So far you appear to veer toward and away from a few different arguments:

i) "'a statement is ALL a theorem is" - which you appear to agree is wrong.
ii) The word "theorem" can be used in other senses if and only if preceded by "can refer to" - this again seems to be an argument relying on arbitrarily applying a linguistic rule.
iii) You consulted more than one source to come to your conclusion in i) - This seems to be a disconnect between your premise and what would support it.  You could show me a hundred examples of a word being used or defined in a way but that doesn't say anything about what you relied on to make your decision.
iv) I am wrong in some other vague way which you have yet defined.
Quote
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.

Now there are literally over a thousand posts from me.  It's likely I made an error in there somewhere.  Why not go through those and find one so you can feel better about all this. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 19, 2015, 03:54:38 PM
Quote from: me
Are you saying that Philip's machine can't sort?
It reacts,the result is a sort.
Is the sorting instantaneous?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 19, 2015, 04:08:51 PM
Sarkeizen:'Is the sorting instantaneous?'

Yeah.a few quadrillianths of a second inbetween react-sort
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 19, 2015, 04:27:55 PM
To react is to sort in any demon's case.simultaneous
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: memoryman on April 19, 2015, 05:01:56 PM
Sarkeizen, you were wrong in your statement, as I pointed out; plain and simple.
How you reacted to that is interesting: instead of simply saying something like 'I could have phrased it better' or 'yes, you're right', you made it personal.
I corrected Simon Derricutt this week on a forum; his response was a simple 'thanks, Bill.
I don't usually point errors out; when I do it with the intent to have crystal clear communication that does not require inferring, guessing, reading between the lines etc.
This will be my last post on this particular exchange; there are better ways to spend my time.
Re"Now there are literally over a thousand posts from me.  It's likely I made an error in there somewhere.  Why not go through those and find one so you can feel better about all this." No, I enjoy your posts and they are usually enjoyable to read.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 19, 2015, 08:12:52 PM
Sarkeizen, you were wrong in your statement
I 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? :)
Quote
, 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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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?
Quote
No, I enjoy your posts and they are usually enjoyable to read.
Yours need some work. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 19, 2015, 08:31:59 PM
Quote from: me
Is the sorting instantaneous?
Yeah.a few quadrillianths of a second inbetween react-sort
So it's constantly getting slower then the more bits you add.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: memoryman on April 19, 2015, 08:48:22 PM
No, sarkeizen. My position is unchanged.
"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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 19, 2015, 09:35:09 PM
No, sarkeizen. My position is unchanged.
Why?

Do you...

i) Not acknowledge that there are other senses of the same term? You sure seemed to imply that you acknowledge their existence when you said "you did not say that it 'may refer to' but 'is'"  or were you in error for bringing that up?
ii) Acknowledge there exist other senses but my use is not one of them?
iii) Acknowledge that my use is legitimate but demand I supply phrasing like "may refer to" or some other secret password to make it acceptable to you?
iv) Acknowledge that my use is legitimate and valid on it's own but is sufficiently ambiguous to have caused you enough confusion to be unable to understand what I was saying?

...or what exactly?

Notice how your claim that this was all about 'crystal clarity' sounds pretty hollow when you're unwilling to explain your objection in any useful way. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 19, 2015, 09:52:13 PM
Sarkeizen'So it's constantly getting slower then the more bits you add'

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 board
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 19, 2015, 10:03:42 PM
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 board
But that would mean that the sorting time doesn't change regardless of your input size.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 19, 2015, 10:15:41 PM
Sarkeizen:'But that would mean that the sorting time doesn't change regardless of your input size.'

What do you mean
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 19, 2015, 10:31:52 PM
Sarkeizen:'But that would mean that the sorting time doesn't change regardless of your input size.'

What do you mean
That no matter how many things you want to sort. It never takes more time.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 19, 2015, 11:11:06 PM
Sarkeizen:'That no matter how many things you want to sort. It never takes more time.'

Wellll...you can sort a billion molecules/particles instantaneously or you can sort forty-five molecules/particles instantaneously yes.takes the same time yes,aslong they're each contained in one demon
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on April 19, 2015, 11:31:54 PM
No, sarkeizen. My position is unchanged.
"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.
I am sorry to hear that. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 20, 2015, 12:21:48 AM
Mark E'I am sorry to hear that.'

Ditto yes
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 20, 2015, 01:48:21 AM
Wellll...you can sort a billion molecules/particles instantaneously or you can sort forty-five molecules/particles instantaneously yes.takes the same time yes
What 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. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 20, 2015, 08:17:43 AM
Sarkeizen:'What you describe is O(1) complexity.'

Are you sure it is.an edward scissorhands.a scissor-switch > forward react>two ways sort> backward react> two ways sort.both ways spontaneous,downhill.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 20, 2015, 08:36:38 AM
 demon-on > particles jump down a level the quantum/particles move to the right in the non-quantum.switchoff>particles jumpup a level in the quantum>particles move to the left in the non-quantum
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 20, 2015, 08:54:34 AM
The above applies to epicatalysis let me just think about quenco for a second..
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 20, 2015, 11:11:24 AM
Quantumdown/particles random.quantumup/particles ordered same thing for quenco.we can simplify: on/quantumdown.off/quantumup.the quantum drive to entropy is stronger than the kinetic drive to entropy but the sun undrives it each time due to loss of further disproportional heat into space,due to heavy leverage.no heat no heat-demon.the toilet thingy must fillup before you can flush it
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 20, 2015, 11:31:06 AM
I might add: one reason why a quenco is able to work is because of an electron's kinetic particle/wave duality.if it was a strictly a wave then quenco could not work.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 20, 2015, 12:55:51 PM
None of that makes any difference.
i) There is data.
ii) It is sorted.
iii) Using a quantum phenomena.
iv) It does not get slower as the data sorting increases.

All of these you agreed were characteristics of Philips device.  iv) is the definition of O(1) complexity.  Philips device can not work.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 20, 2015, 02:15:08 PM
sarkeizen'i) There is data.
ii) It is sorted.
iii) Using a quantum phenomena.
iv) It does not get slower as the data sorting increases.'

Let's look at a common prism infront the sun:
1)There is data
2)It is sorted
3)Using a quantum phenomena
4) It doesnot get slower as data sorting increases

If a prism can work with all these criteria then philip's device should be able to work.philip's device works
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 20, 2015, 04:08:25 PM
One troll - many faces - one of which is you. :)
Let's look at a common prism infront the sun:
1)There is data
2)It is sorted
i) Demonstrate how you encode any quantity of arbitrary data into the light.  So for example all the words in a Shakespearean play.
ii) Show how that exact data then comes out sorted alphabetically and how the sorted results are read.
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 20, 2015, 05:23:26 PM
Sarkeizen'Shakespearean play'

Nonono...that requires millions of DIFFERENT bits.there's only like ten-twenty races of mixed bits going into the prism and exiting as a sorted ten-twenty groups.in quenco there's only four bits.2 on the nonquantum side(bothsides/oneside) and two on the quantum side(up/down).you can sort millions of mixed photons with ten-twenty wavelengths through the prism but you'l only get ten-twenty groups seperated.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 20, 2015, 05:38:47 PM
Sarkeizen:'i) Demonstrate how you encode any quantity of arbitrary data into the light.'

You raise the temperature of an object to any temperature between far infrared and ultraviolet and you have your own designer-sun.you must use the appropriate prism material ofcourse to segregate into wavelengths bits
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 20, 2015, 05:54:29 PM
Earlier on I showed how the sun pays our cost-fee's for keeping a room at 25 degree celcius in order for quenco to work.but now I'm going to calculate if it is at all possible for a demon to work in total isothermal box.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 20, 2015, 06:09:54 PM
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?

Seems like you don't really know what you're talking about...so in other words it's any other day. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 20, 2015, 06:20:47 PM
Sarkeizen:'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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 20, 2015, 06:33:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 20, 2015, 06:38:29 PM
Sarkeizen:'Either Philip's device can sort like a computer or it can't.'

It sorts hot from cold that's all it does.does this constitute a computer? 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 20, 2015, 06:54:32 PM
It sorts hot from cold that's all it does.does this constitute a computer?
You said "same as a computer".

Are you retracting again? :) :) :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 20, 2015, 07:01:20 PM
Mr sarkeizen who is the computer expert here? Who is the grand algo-rythm teacher here? Find out from your superiors if a hot-cold sort is a computer please while I fry my brain trying to figure how an ideological isothermal demon can exist ok?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 20, 2015, 07:15:15 PM
You can chalk me up another point.  Twice in this discussion alone I have Profitis dancing around a question he already answered. :)
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?

If you're going to try to cop out of being capable.  I think I win this hands down. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on April 20, 2015, 07:59:20 PM
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?

If you're going to try to cop out of being capable.  I think I win this hands down. :)
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on April 21, 2015, 03:23:01 AM
Philips device does not perform any work and does not sort anything.
It simply creates an environment where electrons can sort themselves based on their energy level.
 
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.
 
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.
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 21, 2015, 04:47:53 AM
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.
Quote
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.

Proofs aren't (necessarily) like that .  There is no physical system you are emulating.  So there is no "scope" in the sense that you are using it.  There are assumptions but other than ones stated by the proof itself they are those which are common to all math.  Most of which you have already assumed before you even start thinking about a machine like Philips.

Perhaps this is why you think you can create a program which can solve the turing termination problem.  Because you think there is just some...mechanistic...barrier.  When the problem is that such a thing is a logical impossibility.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on April 21, 2015, 05:37:59 AM
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.

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.
 
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 21, 2015, 06:03:43 AM

There is a difference!
Not in the distinction you raised.  That's the point.
Quote

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.
*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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on April 21, 2015, 06:07:59 AM
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?
Quote

It simply creates an environment where electrons can sort themselves based on their energy level.
While all charged particles aspire to live in a healthy, nurturing environment Montessori for Fermions failed financially.
Quote

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.
In both examples energy is consumed and entropy of the system increases.
Quote

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.
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on April 21, 2015, 06:21:45 AM

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 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 21, 2015, 02:23:39 PM
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. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on April 21, 2015, 05:23:13 PM
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?

No, a computer cannot simulate random.
Much work has been put into random generation on a computer and in the end it is usually based on time and some fractal number divisions or other math trying to simulate random.
True random in a computer now is by accessing a junction device like a bad diode that generates thermal electron noise for the 1 or 0 bits much like Philips device.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on April 21, 2015, 05:29:15 PM
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.

It is indeed quite possible to prevent some excited electron from passing back through with a simple magnetic field. It's already been done!

"While you are standing there thinking it's impossible, someone else is already doing it"
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 21, 2015, 05:44:48 PM
Right I'm back from meditation let's see what one of the elite-circle physicists has to say about non-randomity:

'Once the event occurs, all of the probabilities against
it happening become irrelevant for that event even if
the same probabilities occur again in the same way
for future events.
In quantum mechanics it is called collapsing the wave
function, meaning that a lot of odds just get
reshuffled.
The message from Schrödinger about life was that
one success tends to improve the odds of future
successes, and the entropy tends to be minimized
and even decreased by non random mechanisms
according to the third law of thermodynamics.
(1) Third law of decay S = k Ln D for D the number of
states that can be randomly occupied.
(2) for creation (-S) = k Ln (1/C) for C the number of
states that are prevented from being randomly
occupied.
(3) Combined total third law (net S) = k Ln D/C
Then creation occurs when C is greater than D, and
the second law is not violated because the process is
nonrandom and reversible.'

Thus even in an perfectly isothermal box a discrepency occurs because the number of possible random states in a quenco is reduced by the quantum to two sates..up or down.our chances for growth go dramaticaly up here at the demon surface.the third law of thermodynamics ensures that the second law of thermodynamics is only applicable to random processes and not non-random processes. This aside when we have an assymetric nonquantum interaction with the quantum then we press on what they call the vaccuum field of the universe.when we press against this field then space-time begins to curve and funny things begin to happen,rules can bend to its (the vacuum-field's) needs.this is what the best of the best (physicists) have to say in a nutshell about spontaneous localized order.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 21, 2015, 06:23:42 PM
Sarkeizen:'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?'

If a prism is a computer then YES the quenco is a computer too.a bit better now?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 21, 2015, 06:41:31 PM
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. :)

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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 21, 2015, 06:53:55 PM
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.  :)

So either you were a moron to have said "just like a computer" because not being able to sort the vast majority of things that a computer can sort isn't very much like a computer OR you have to show how you encode/sort/output information on a prism JUST LIKE A COMPUTER.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 21, 2015, 07:00:55 PM
Mark E:'sarkeizen has shown that the complexity theorem he
cites is applicable to profitis'

but apparantly not to prisms.I wonder why
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 21, 2015, 07:06:58 PM
Mark E:'sarkeizen has shown that the complexity theorem he cites is applicable to profitis'

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.
FTFY.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 21, 2015, 07:11:33 PM
Mr sarkeizen you said that a two-bit sort requires algo-rythm did you not
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 21, 2015, 07:15:15 PM
Mr sarkeizen you said that a two-bit sort requires algo-rythm did you not
No 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. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 21, 2015, 07:16:12 PM
Mr sarkeizen if a machine uses algo-rythm to sort is it not by definition a computer?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 21, 2015, 07:18:14 PM
Mr sarkeizen is it possible to sort any chaos into order without an algo-rythm?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 21, 2015, 07:21:34 PM
Sarkeizen:'no idea what a "two bit sort" is.any mixed two-component chaotic entity into an ordered state eg hotcold> hot/cold
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 21, 2015, 07:29:47 PM
any mixed two-component chaotic entity into an ordered state eg hotcold> hot/cold
No 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? :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 21, 2015, 07:46:04 PM
Sarkeizen:'doesn't this mean your argument is dead? :)'

Not while I'm winning the argument no.YOU said an  instantaneous quantum-sorter is impossible.the PRISM meets all criteria that YOU gave for an instantaneous quantum-sorter.if a prism can sort INSTANTANEOUSLY and QUANTUMLY then why can't mr hardcastle's machine do same.you did not do anything but dodge this criticaly important point not so
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 21, 2015, 08:15:37 PM
Quote from: considerably smarter than you
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...

So again I don't see how a prism is relevant.  You said right there in that quote that it can't sort the words from a play and you said earlier that the quenco can sort something of "whatever size you want" and you say a prism can't.

Clearly these are not the same thing.  If you say they are then please answer the question how you encode the words from a play into light to be sorted by the prism and how you read the result.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on April 21, 2015, 08:27:05 PM
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!

Suppose we have two computers exactly the same running the same random generation program starting at the exact moment ....... and now you see that the random results are indeed not random.

Two thermal noise devices will always return a different result based on bit count chance unlike the two computers that will produce the same result because they cannot produce true random.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 21, 2015, 08:33:46 PM
Sarkeizen'So again I don't see how a prism is relevant.'

if a prism can sort INFORMATION INSTANTANEOUSLY AND QUANTUMLY without infringing your bbbv then  so can a quenco do same.that is its important relevance mr sarkeizen.
 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 21, 2015, 08:51:02 PM
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?

While you're thinking about that let's get back to you masturbating over thermal noise RNGs.
Quote
Two thermal noise devices will always return a different result
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. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 21, 2015, 08:52:03 PM
Sarkeizen'So again I don't see how a prism is relevant.'

if a prism can
You already said it can't sort like a computer right? :) or did you?  I'm losing track. Please clarify. :)

Were you wrong when you said: "Nonono..." or can you tell me how you would encode the words from a play on it.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 21, 2015, 09:15:50 PM
Mr sarkeizen I'm going to get angry now.a prism SORTS INFORMATION INSTANTLY.a quenco SORTS INFORMATION INSTANTLY.that is all that is relevant to your ANTI-SORTING-INSTANTLY BBBV and proves that your theorem is inappropriate as an anti-quenco argument man.beyond doubt
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on April 21, 2015, 09:23:20 PM
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. :)

The Pseudo Random Number Generator can simulate the results but not the sorting behavior and will produce the same number on two computers showing that it is not random but Pseudo random or simulated.

Random Noise Generators have their own problems in that they tend to produce an equal number of 1's to 0's but when working with binary computers the result becomes true random in that when checked for a 1 or 0 the chance is always random. You can simply fill out any binary number in any order with the output of the RNG and the result is true random.

Two computers deriving numbers from their own RNG device will produce different numbers when all else is equal except for chance.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 21, 2015, 09:25:45 PM
Mr sarkeizen I'm going to get angry now
Look was it unclear to you that we were talking about something that worked like a computer?  Even when you said: "just like a computer"?
Was it unclear to you that we were talking about sorting arbitrarily large things? Even when I asked you specifically about sorting arbitrarily large things?
So now you want to talk about something that you claim can't sort "like a computer" right? and can't sort "arbitrarily large things" right?
Your desire to fabricate some argument that is entirely different than the one I laid out carefully through all your dancing around the question posts.  Is simply: Not. My. Problem.  Either address the thing that was being clearly discussed or admit you lost. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 21, 2015, 09:28:14 PM
The Pseudo Random Number Generator can simulate the results but not the sorting behavior
So even when we go through ALL POSSIBLE OUTCOMES of molecular movement in your "environment" - not one of those is sorted? :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 21, 2015, 09:31:33 PM
Mr sarkeizen. A QUENCO SORTS INSTANTLY>> HOT/COLD
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 21, 2015, 09:32:58 PM
Mr sarkeizen. A QUENCO SORTS INSTANTLY>> HOT/COLD
But according to you a Quenco can sort arbitrarily large data sets and a prism can't right?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 21, 2015, 09:43:05 PM
Sarkeizen'But according to you a Quenco can sort arbitrarily
large data sets and a prism can't right?'

Both can sort billions of particle-waves instantly according their energy-status
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on April 21, 2015, 09:51:43 PM
So even when we go through ALL POSSIBLE OUTCOMES of molecular movement in your "environment" - not one of those is sorted? :)

So now you see the difference!
Nothing is sorted, it simply sorts itself at random. Entropy at it's finest.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 21, 2015, 09:53:03 PM
Sarkeizen'But according to you a Quenco can sort arbitrarily
large data sets and a prism can't right?'

Both can sort billions of particle-waves instantly according their energy-status
So you were wrong when I asked if it can sort the words from a play and you said: "nononononono"
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 21, 2015, 09:55:41 PM
Nothing is sorted
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. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 21, 2015, 10:13:32 PM
Sarkeizen'So you were wrong when I asked if it can sort the
words from a play and you said: "nononononono"'

Nono I was right.we didn't programme quenco to do that shakesperian.we only programmed it to do hot/cold in the exact same way that the prism was programmed to do red/green/blue/violet
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 21, 2015, 10:20:35 PM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 21, 2015, 10:30:46 PM
Sarkeizen'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.how much data is this mr sarkeizen I'm not a computer-boff
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 21, 2015, 10:48:32 PM
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 21, 2015, 11:11:04 PM
Sarkeizen'i don't speak troll.'

Yawn

 Sarkeizen:' So can it sort them alphabetically?'

No only wordly.recognizes only 2 words
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 21, 2015, 11:26:51 PM
No only wordly.recognizes only 2 words
I don't know what "worldly" means.  Again post in English, not Troll.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 21, 2015, 11:42:32 PM
Sarkeizen:' don't know what "worldly" means.'

Because your an idiot.wordly means it recognizes all the words,hot and all the words cold.and segregates them
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 21, 2015, 11:51:10 PM
Because your an idiot.
I don't speak troll.
Quote
wordly means it recognizes all the words,hot and all the words cold.and segregates them
What does that mean?  If I put in:
Quote
Look in thy glass and tell the face thou viewest,
Now is the time that face should form another,
What is the output. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 22, 2015, 12:07:02 AM
Sarkeizen:'what does that mean? '

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 22, 2015, 12:08:50 AM
Sarkeizen:'what does that mean? '

It means I'm playing you for a fool :)
Awww you realized you are wrong and are backtracking.  One more point for me. 
Quote from: used car salesman
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. :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

Also Philip said molecules not electrons.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 22, 2015, 12:24:31 AM
Sarkeizen:'
So it can't be used to sort words?  It is impossible to
use it in this way. :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
Also Philip said molecules not electrons.'

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.its impossible for a singular quenco yes.philip meant electrons if he said molecules.other types demons can deal with molecules

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 22, 2015, 12:33:08 AM
Always fun to watch profitis squirm....
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?
Quote
.philip meant electrons if he said molecules
Nope.  Molecules.  Remember we're talking about Philips fictional device.  Not yours.  Start another thread for your fantasies. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on April 22, 2015, 12:45:49 AM
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.

In the end all the electrons will sort themselves using their own energy levels because of the imposing conditions of the environment where they exist.

You can observe that sorting did occur but is irrelevant to the fact.

Just like rocks on a mountain will sort downward due to their environment, it will occur whether counted or not, again just entropy at work.



Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 22, 2015, 01:00:06 AM
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.

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. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 22, 2015, 01:12:06 AM
sarkeizen'Ok so when you do this will it sort words
instantaneously?'

No it will not instantly


Sarkeizen'Nope.  Molecules.  Remember we're talking about
Philips fictional device.  Not yours.  Start another
thread for your fantasies. :)'

particles yes
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on April 22, 2015, 01:36:42 AM
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. :)

Why would I avoid that question?
The RNG could easily be used to model a Quenco device because the RNG is nearly a quenco already.
It lacks only the environment which could be simulated in the computer.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 22, 2015, 02:05:38 AM
No it will not instantly
Yawn.  More dancing.  So what will the performance be? :)
Quote
particles yes
Molecules.  Go ahead and read the thread.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 22, 2015, 02:14:29 AM
Sarkeizen:' So what will the performance
be? :)'

Well sir it will be a damn good performance? :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 22, 2015, 02:21:31 AM
Why would I avoid that question?
Glad you admit that you've been avoiding the other questions. :)
Quote
The RNG could easily be used to model a Quenco device because the RNG in nearly a quenco already.
It lacks only the environment which could be simulated in the computer.
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 22, 2015, 02:23:24 AM
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?

LOL - you are such a faker. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on April 22, 2015, 05:14:03 AM
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 questions, you simply refused to hear the answer.
In fact you always play the same role in some attempt to show how much you think you know by putting words in my mouth.
The fact is the RNG or the PRNG would suffice as the input for random electron energy level in a computer simulation, 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 can a computer simulate a quenco?  Think about electrons sorting themselves by their energy levels like photons through a prism.
Can a computer simulate a prism?

The computer can simulate, it just can't emulate.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 22, 2015, 10:28:57 AM
Sarkeizen'So before you were able to give the performance of a quenco down to quadrillenths of a second.  Now you can't?'

Are you kidding? A multiquenco brain is going to slow down the more algorythms it does.same as a computer(hey there's those words of mine again :) )
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 22, 2015, 10:46:26 AM
Here's a riddle for everyone: is a ipod computers brain reacting or calculating.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 22, 2015, 02:08:12 PM
I wasn't avoiding any questions
You were asked:  Do you think you can simulate this random crashing and sorting of a quenco on a computer?
You said:
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?
You continued with focusing on thermal-noise RNG's vs PRNGS .  Since I assume that you are trying to answer the question (and not avoiding it) You seem to think that randomness is a barrier to modeling the quenco.
You were asked again to answer the question - clarifying about an RNG which would go through all possible permutations.
Still more lecturing on PRNGs vs Thermal-noise.
You were asked a third time.  Again no "yes" or "no" just a vague statement about entropy but not answering the clear question: Can we simulate this?
You were asked a fourth time.  Again no "yes" or "no".
I re-phrased the question for the fifth time.  Since you seem to think that discussing Thermal-noise RNG's is important to the outcome. 
First time you say: "Yes"
I crush your argument and now....
Quote
The fact is the RNG or the PRNG would suffice
Now all of a sudden it doesn't matter.

Dude if you danced around the question any harder I'd have to hang up a disco ball.  This isn't anyone putting words in your mouth this is your mouth doing everything but answering the question.  Including going on about something for three or four posts that in the END YOU SAID DIDN'T MATTER. :)
Quote
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.

So again, since you claim you're not avoiding the question:

Quote
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?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 22, 2015, 02:11:34 PM
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. :)

However I think you've lost here as you've had to redesign the "quenco" three or four times now. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 22, 2015, 02:29:30 PM
Sarkeizen:'I don't speak troll.  You're going to have to write that in English. :)

Shove alota quencos together assymetricly an they slow down.

Sarkeizen:'However I think you've lost here as you've had to redesign the "quenco" three or four times now. :)'

You mean re-interpret it for idiots yes :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 22, 2015, 02:58:59 PM
Shove alota quencos together
What does this give you in terms of the ability to operate on data of a specific size?
Quote
assymetricly an they slow down.
Troll speak.  English please.
Quote
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.

That's you making things up as you go. :)  Which is what you expect from quenco as it's fictional. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 22, 2015, 03:23:51 PM
Sarkeizen:'Nope.  You've gone from saying a quenco - singular sorts just like a computer.'

If sorting two pieces info requires a computer yes.you're the computer expert.YOU must tell us the answer here.

  ''handles data of arbitrary size and processes instantaneously.''

 sorts tons of two-bit info instantaneously

 '' To something that doesn't.''

Doesn't what
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 22, 2015, 03:29:05 PM
Sarkeizen:'What does this give you in terms of the ability to operate on data of a specific size?'

Same as a computer,the more switches in assymetry,the more algorythms are handled.depends on numbers of switches and arrangements
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 22, 2015, 03:36:58 PM
Same as a computer
Can I interpret this in a non-Troll sense of the term.

Cause last time you said a single quenco sorted "the same as a computer" and worked on arbitrarily large data without slowing down.  However it couldn't sort the vast majority of things a computer can sort. :)  So your use of "like a computer" was about the same as "almost entirely NOT like a computer".

Hence I need to know if this is English or Troll you are speaking. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 22, 2015, 03:55:17 PM
Sarkeizen:'Hence I need to know if this is English or Troll you are speaking. :)'

And I need to know same from you.IS A TWO-BIT SORTER A COMPUTER or not,yes or no.if it is then quenco is a two-bit sorting computer
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 22, 2015, 04:33:43 PM
IS A TWO-BIT SORTER A COMPUTER or not
I 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. :)

Really if you had cracked a book on computer science, even a really old book.  You would find all sorts of information on how to present what you are talking about.  i.e. it could be described as a FSM.  Instead you use all sorts of non-standard, made-up and generally stupid terms.   It seems like, you really know nothing at all and kind of require someone else to fill in your argument for you.   That sounds about right doesn't it?

Same thing when you were talking about "hydrogen spillover" - more cheap smokescreen.  Do people usually get fooled by this "Do my homework for me" approach where you live?

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. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 22, 2015, 06:44:48 PM
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. :)'

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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 22, 2015, 06:52:54 PM
Sarkeizen:' It seems like, you really know nothing at all and kind of require someone else to fill in your argument for you.   That sounds about right doesn't it?'

I know alot.enough to give a few reasons for philip's device being able to sort hot from cold.you on the otherhand can't give one beside pointing to kelvin statement
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 22, 2015, 07:00:20 PM
so far you gave us no reason why phillip's device should not be able to sort hot from cold
Actually again the BBBV likely applies to Philip's machine. :)
Quote
wheras I've given a good few reasons why it should
Nope.  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. :)

Try again, this time speak less troll and more English. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 22, 2015, 08:01:00 PM
Sarkeizen'Actually again the BBBV likely applies to Philip's machine. :)'

In what way.(ps. I'm glad you said likely and not definitely,it shows growth of character and a change in your viewpoint :) )
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 22, 2015, 08:04:56 PM
Sarkeizen:'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 :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 22, 2015, 08:51:13 PM
Quote from: me
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....

How data is encoded....no answer from profitis here.
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.   

Good show using English in your post though.  Keep up the good work. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 22, 2015, 09:28:02 PM
Sarkeizen:'So no, nothing remotely approaching a definition that
would say if the BBBV applies or not.'

 a prism violates bbbv theorem.it uses a quantum effect to sort better than O1 instantaneously.thus your bbbv theorem cannot be used in any argument whatsoever from now onwards
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 22, 2015, 09:43:08 PM
a prism violates bbbv theorem.
Nope.  You have not told me...

How data is encoded....
How the sorted output is read...
How the performance scales with input size...
If the output deterministic...

So you have not even established a case for the prism falling in or outside the BBBV.

Again this good progress that you're using English.   You are saying excessively stupid things in English but you know "baby steps". :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 22, 2015, 10:19:46 PM
Sarkeizen:'no you have not even established a case for the
prism falling in or outside the BBBV.'

Mr sarkeizen I believe an instantaneous sorting greater than 01 is strictly banned for quantum bbbv.thus your theorem holds no water.ps a prism sorting by wavelength is an example of a non-spontaneous chaos reduction.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 22, 2015, 10:43:28 PM
I want to point out that the rainbow that emerges from one prism can be recombined by another into white light
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 22, 2015, 10:45:52 PM
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). :)

There is a theorem called the BBBV it bounds the speed-up from quantum effects.   Now using this information and English.  Please state what you are trying to express. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 22, 2015, 11:01:41 PM
Sarkeizen:'there is a theorem called the BBBV it bounds the
speed-up from quantum effects.'

Lol let me see if I can locate the source where you just retrieved this latin from brb
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on April 23, 2015, 12:27:45 AM
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. :)'

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
LOL, if you think that anything you have proposed supports PJH's claims then you are a very badly deluded individual. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: lumen on April 23, 2015, 04:38:15 AM
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.
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.

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on April 23, 2015, 04:48:31 AM
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.
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.
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.

Your example is not very good because cold fusion is an unproven claim.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 23, 2015, 05:02:12 AM
Example: Fusion requires a minimum energy level to occur
This 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?

Proofs have assumptions, but they don't have the same inductive problem. 
Quote
, but yet we have cold fusion.
Not really.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 23, 2015, 08:15:02 AM
Mark E'LOL, if you think that anything you have proposed
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on April 23, 2015, 09:53:18 AM
Mark E'LOL, if you think that anything you have proposed
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
Bear 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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 23, 2015, 10:36:09 AM
Sarkeizen:'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.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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on April 23, 2015, 11:37:07 AM
Sarkeizen:'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.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.
Do you get massively stoned before you post?  Because what you post makes it look a lot like you do.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 23, 2015, 12:06:51 PM
Mark E'Bear 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 Ag-O-Cs is available and that this is besides the point.bear in mind that we can raise the whole system to the desired temperature.

Mark E' Bear in mind
that given an open external circuit, charge does not
pile up on one or both electrodes.'

Bear in mind that the question was how shoving a grid inbetween will alter charge distribution as opposed to no grid inbetween.


 Mark E' Bear in mind that
current through a vacuum tube diode flows only
when an external power source is connected in the
diode circuit loop.'

Bear in mind that this is not necessarily true
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 23, 2015, 12:19:16 PM
Mark E'Do you get massively stoned before you post?
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
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on April 23, 2015, 12:20:45 PM
Mark E'Do you get massively stoned before you post?
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
Is that a yes?  It looks like  a yes.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 23, 2015, 12:32:31 PM
Mark E'is that a yes?  It looks like  a yes.'

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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on April 23, 2015, 12:38:57 PM
Mark E'is that a yes?  It looks like  a yes.'

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.
As your responses wander seemingly uncontrollably the yes is implicit.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 23, 2015, 12:45:35 PM
Mr SARKEIZEN WANTS to KNOW how to convert small INFO into LARGE ENERGY mr E.we must tell him
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 23, 2015, 02:10:51 PM
Quote from: me
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.
Quote
YOU want to know how small information can be turned into large work.
Nope.  I want to know/...
i) How you ENCODE information - i.e. get a sonnet into your device
ii) How you read it out again. - i.e. get the sorted list of words back
iii) If the output is deterministic.  That is if we put the same list of words in twice.  Are the outputs identical?
iv) How does the time it takes to run scale with the size of the input list?

If you know that your device sorts then these should be trivial to answer. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 23, 2015, 05:34:31 PM
Me:'YOU want to know how small information can be turned into large work.'

Sarkeizen:'Nope.  I want to know'

Let me get this straight.you want to discuss somebody's information theory instead of discussing how information can manipulate disproportionate energy?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 23, 2015, 05:52:52 PM
Let me get this straight.you want to discuss somebody's information theory
This is what this ENTIRE conversation was about troll-boy.  I said that complexity theory had something to say about the Quenco.
Quote
instead of discussing how information can manipulate disproportionate energy?
Instead of discussing made up troll-speak.  Absolutely. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 23, 2015, 08:43:08 PM
Sarkeizen:'I said that complexity theory had something to say about the Quenco.'

We have to know how a computer works if we are to involve complexity theory relative to a demon.a computer is just a bunch of switches that react to input energy.this is how bbbv works.it actively calculates via switches reacting to input energy.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 23, 2015, 09:17:40 PM
We have to know how a computer works if we are to involve complexity theory
Nope.  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.

Depending on which lie of yours we are looking at.  You claim to know these things.  Of course you're lying again but this is just like saying: "profitis said..."
Quote
this is how bbbv works
Not according to the paper.  Please stop bullshitting and answer the question or admit you are out of your depth. :)

Or if we were to characterize your post a good approximation would be: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKjxFJfcrcA
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 23, 2015, 10:42:33 PM
Sarkeizen:'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.'

Quenco is a quantum switch with two possible quantum states..up or down.we physicaly erase the up by switching down.we physicaly erase the down by switching up.each time the switch is thrown we move billions of identical particles to the left or to the right.this is because it is a perfectly reversable non-random event 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 23, 2015, 10:54:08 PM
Quenco is a quantum switch
All 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.

Now you can tell me how to encode information on them.  How we read the output and how it scales.  Again please no troll-speak just use Philip's description.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 23, 2015, 11:01:48 PM
Sarkeizen:'Now you can tell me how to encode information on them.'

Encode information on what.what is them
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 23, 2015, 11:05:07 PM
Sarkeizen'It separates hot molecules from ones that aren't hot.'

Technicly it sorts space-charge,very quickly.the grid is our statisticly semi-permeable membrane
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 23, 2015, 11:11:24 PM
Sarkeizen:'No switches'

There is a switch in every such device.if its not in the diagram you will see it in real life
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 23, 2015, 11:22:40 PM
There is a switch in every such device.if its not in the diagram you will see it in real life
There 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. :)

All there were were molecules which were being separated.   So sadly your bullshit switch is for another thread. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 23, 2015, 11:27:13 PM
Sarkeizen:'Philip's device has no switch.'

If this is true how the hell do you switch it on.it has a switch 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 23, 2015, 11:30:13 PM
Sarkeizen:'So sadly your bullshit switch is for another thread. :)'

Sadly it seems like your copping out of your own argument
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 23, 2015, 11:40:48 PM
Sadly it seems like your copping out of your own argument
Yawn.  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.

Understand troll-boy?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 23, 2015, 11:48:35 PM
Sarkeizen:'Understand troll-boy?'

Yawn,,, 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 obvious
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 24, 2015, 12:05:11 AM
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 obvious
As 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. :)

The Profitis bullshit thread you can start any day of the week.  Right now.  Go ahead.  But you wont. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 12:09:09 AM
Mr sarkeizen what exactly do you have against me adding a simpleton on/off switch to the quenco.bring electronic expert tinselkoala here quickly he'l calm your nerves for you godamit
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 12:12:26 AM
Sarkeizen:'Maybe you can convince Philip to come back and say his device NEEDS a switch'

His device IS a godamn switch.its either on/off simultaneously or on or off.I want it on or off to expose its thermodynamic cycles
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 24, 2015, 12:35:19 AM
Quote from: profitis
me adding a simpleton on/off switch to the quenco
Thanks 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

If you want to make a new thread for the Profitis Switch Shit Machine or Profitis Shit Switch Machine or Le Machine Du Profitis au Merde.  Be my guest but as I predicted you wont. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 12:43:21 AM
Mr sarkeizen there will still be excess energy with a switch added,trust me man :).it'l be much easier to understand in cycles on/off believe me ;) come back el nineo
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 24, 2015, 01:16:19 AM
Mr sarkeizen there will still be excess energy with a switch added
So 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.

Anyway I've made a thread where we can discuss your "switched" ideas.

http://www.overunity.com/15730/shit-profitis-shat/new/#new

Edit: Apparently the title bothered some people so I renamed it:

http://www.overunity.com/15730/things-evicted-from-profitis-anus/
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 09:48:23 AM
Nonono mr sarkeizen rename that thread to something less offensive.I'm thick-skinned but not an idiot.do it quickly before edit expires

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 24, 2015, 12:57:09 PM
Nonono mr sarkeizen rename that thread to something less offensive.I'm thick-skinned but not an idiot.do it quickly before edit expires

There's just no pleasing some people: http://www.overunity.com/15730/excremental-emanations-the-fecal-musings-of-profitis/msg447441#.VTohJyHBzGc

So I take it you concede here because apparently you can't argue your case without switches. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 01:23:21 PM
Sarkeizen:' http://www.overunity.com/15730/excremental-emanations-the-fecal-musings-of-profitis/msg447441#.VTohJyHBzGc'

Erase the first 4 words of it then I'l go there.quit being childish el nineo

Sarkeizen:'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.we're not stupid
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 24, 2015, 01:50:50 PM
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?
Quote
quit being childish el nineo
Uh 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. :)
Quote from: me
So I take it you concede here because apparently you can't argue your case without switches. :)
Quote
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.
Quote
we're not stupid
There is little evidence to support that assertion. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 02:26:45 PM
Sarkeizen:'Uh...so according to Profitis logic if I'm afraid of something I actively run away from it'

Damn right yes.every friggn electronic appliance in the whole world has to be switched on and off yet you want to dictatorialy rule this out of discussion.do you think professori Cubincini would throw me out the office if I insisted he explain an electromagnet's workings to me with a switch-fetish in the pixture?don't be crazy el nineo.quit fooling around and deal with the switch,which is what any demon is essentially
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 02:32:33 PM
Sarkeizen:'So I take it you concede here because apparently you can't argue your case without switches. :)'

It is necessary to expose how any demon-switch works by including a switch.quenco is a capacitor.it works in cycles same as any heat engine
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 02:43:21 PM
Amazing how mr sarkeizen loves transistor-switches but hates quenco-switches
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 24, 2015, 03:05:16 PM
deal with the switch
Absolutely - 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.

So by the fact that you are spending a good dozen posts on this switch.  The obvious conclusion is you can't make your argument without it.   So just go make a new thread - you could have made fifty threads in all the time you've spent trying to add a switch to a product you already admit does not have a switch. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 04:48:10 PM
Mr sarkeizen your whole friggn argument is that an arrangement of switching (bbbv) fucks quenco.my whole argument is that quenco IS a bbbv-switch.now HOW must I show that quenco is a bbbv if I'm banned from including a friggen switch? Quenco IS a switch,ask philip and he will tell you the same thing.if the two wires that emerge outofaquenco are seperated by vaccuum it is OFF.if the two wires that emerge outofaquenco are seperated by water vapour it is less OFF.if the two wires that emerge outofaquenco are seperated by liquid water it is even less OFF somewhat ON.if the two wires that emerge outofaquenco are seperated by seawater it is still less OFF much more ON.if the two wires that emerge outofaquenco are seperated by mercury it is still far less OFF and much more ON.do you see the scales of difference in R here(ask tinselkoala what this R is).again,professori Cubincini will gladly explain any electrical engine to me with switch included.infact Cubincini will find it even easier to explain any common appliance (eg.electromagnetsdomain flipping) to me with the switch attatched.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 04:55:54 PM
Question:Why does mr sarkeizen use switching(bbbv) as a weapon against demonology whilst he bans the use of switching to support demonology?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 24, 2015, 05:14:56 PM
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. :)

I'm, as I stated before absolutely eager to discuss your switched bullshit apparatus with your bullshitting self but simply not in this thread.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 06:39:22 PM
Sarkeizen:'Nope.  That's not my argument.  BBBV has nothing to do with installing a power switch on something.'

Sorry this arrangement of words won't get you off the hook.bbbv has everything to do with switch ARRANGEMENTS.infact it has so much to do with switches that it's main use is for computer-design and programming.bbbv CAN only be implemented via switching re-arrangement.

Sarkeizen:'Philip says that the quenco sorts (without a switch).
You say the quenco sorts without a switch.'

Naturaly,when its in ON and OFF modes simultaneously,hence the need to freeze-frame it for explano.we can't look at how electrons fly all over the place,we need to describe how they fly all over the place and why.remember when philip said that it will be kinda self-limiting due to the cooling effect? In other words there's an instantaneous downward gradient of discharge from room temp down to equilibrium temp,bang,like the capacitor that it is.
 
sarkeizen:' My argument is about the sorting behavior.   Hence switches = you being a bullshitter. :)'

Your weapon is bbbv hence switches= me being highly re-active and making you tremble with fear.

Sarkeizen:'I'm, as I stated before absolutely eager to discuss your switched bullshit apparatus with your bullshitting self but simply not in this thread.'

Let me get this straight.you want to argue using switch-application(bbbv) in this thread but want me to argue using switch-application(bbbv) in another thread? Don't be silly we're going to stay right here mr sarkeizen,especially now that I've got you by the balls.you may leave if you want but I'm staying right here
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 24, 2015, 07:09:36 PM
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?
Quote
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.

But of course...you can't do any of those things because...well...you're bullshitting. :)  Which seems to be almost the same as saying: "profitis is talking".
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 07:34:32 PM
Sarkeizen'BBBV which requires no switches'

Algorithm theorems are theorems(non-3dimensional)that require SWITCHES for 3-dimensional(real) implementation.right or wrong
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 24, 2015, 07:45:57 PM
Quote from: me
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?

However, as I stated the BBBV is a proof, that limits the efficiency of algorithms exploiting quantum effects.  If you don't understand why switches are not important, it's probably because you don't understand the aims of complexity theory or even Computer Science to a large extent.   Computer Science in this sense - isn't really about programming. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 07:47:26 PM
(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)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 07:49:22 PM
Sarkeizen:'as I stated the BBBV is a proof'

On paper.we're not interested in paper,we're interested in how bbbv is implemented in everyday life
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 24, 2015, 07:49:29 PM
(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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 24, 2015, 07:58:08 PM
On paper.we're not interested in paper,we're interested in how bbbv is implemented in everyday life
I 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

So a proof is a logical consequence.  Do you understand what that is?

I'll give you an example.  Suppose there is some theorem that proves some statement A is true.  This implies that there is some other statement which is the opposite of A which is false..  We will call this statement "not A" or !A.

Do you understand that?  Do I need to draw some pictures. :) 

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 07:58:15 PM
Sarkeizen:'Don't take any stupid pills.  Your past-posts indicate that they don't help'

I took a multi-vit today.makes the mind sharp.guess you forgot to take yours :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 08:00:27 PM
Sarkeizen:'I'll give you an example blah-de-blah-blah'

Sorry,not interested.only interested in implementation
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 24, 2015, 08:02:02 PM
Sorry,not interested.only interested in implementation
Implementation of what? :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 24, 2015, 08:03:13 PM
I took a multi-vit today.
Well that proves you're gullible. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 08:05:16 PM
Sarkeizen:'Implementation of what? :)'

Of your weapon of choice,algorithms.let me give you a clue:how does a friggen computer work mr computer genius
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 24, 2015, 08:09:02 PM
Of your weapon of choice,algorithms.
My argument is about the BBBV mr-i-am-so-naive-i-take-multi-vitamins. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 08:15:06 PM
Sarkeizen:'My argument is about the BBBV'

Our argument is about implementation of bbbv mr im-so-in-the-corner-now
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 24, 2015, 08:24:47 PM
Our argument is about implementation of bbbv
BBBV isn't an algorithm.  :)  It's a proof.   You don't understand the difference...do you?  LOL!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 08:27:11 PM
Sarkeizen:'BBBV isn't an algorithm.  :)'

Whatever it is we wana know how its implemented in the real world.I doubt youre going to tell us
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 24, 2015, 08:29:47 PM
Whatever it is we wana know how its implemented
I need you to define what "implemented" means when talking about a proof. :)   Show me the implementation of another purely mathematical proof. :)
Quote
I doubt youre going to tell us
I'd be happy to, if I had any idea what that means.  Sadly, what you are talking about doesn't really exist. :)

This is just another way of stalling things isn't it? LOL!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 08:31:47 PM
Sarkeizen:' Quote from: profitis on Today at 07:58:15 PM ---I took a multi-vit today.

--- End quote ---
Well that proves you're gullible. :)'

I must admit I've been slack much of the latter part of the thread but beware now mr sarkeizen I'm ready to pounce
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 24, 2015, 08:33:27 PM
I must admit I've been slack much of the latter part of the thread but beware now mr sarkeizen I'm ready to pounce
Well I hope you do something...for the past year or so all you do is delay, bullshit and posture.

It would be nice to see that you are capable of something else. :)

....and you're still kind of stupid for taking multi-vitamins. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 08:34:49 PM
Sarkeizen:'Show me the implementation of another purely mathematical proof. :)'

Uhmmm no I'l stick with algorithms and their direct implementation in the real world
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 08:39:41 PM
Sarkeizen:'Quote ---I doubt youre going to tell us

--- End quote ---
I'd be happy to, if I had any idea what that means.  Sadly, what you are talking about doesn't really exist.'

Wooooooo you're getting weaker and weaker :).I can use information-sorting to support a quenco.you can't use information-sorting to disqualify one hehehe!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 24, 2015, 08:39:50 PM
Uhmmm no I'l stick with algorithms and their direct implementation in the real world
i) My argument is about the BBBV.
ii) The BBBV is a proof.
iii) You are asking some question about "implementing the BBBV"
iv) I can't answer that unless I know what "implementing a proof" means.
v) You can't tell me.
vi) Therefore you don't know what you are talking about.

QED.  Keep taking those vitamins.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 08:47:06 PM
Sarkeizen:' I can't answer that unless I know what "implementing a proof" means.'

Huh? Algorithm proofs have absolutely nothing to do with switches on the inside of a computer?becareful how you answer this
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 24, 2015, 08:49:36 PM
Huh? Algorithm proofs have absolutely nothing to do with switches on the inside of a computer?becareful how you answer this
What is an "algorithm proof".  The BBBV is a proof.  It's not an algorithm. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 08:54:22 PM
Sarkeizen:'Actually again the BBBV likely applies to Philip's machine. :)'

Did you write this.if you did how could it apply to philip's machine and at the same time insist that it must remain seperate from machines?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 24, 2015, 08:56:10 PM
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?

Are you going to tell me what an "algorithm proof" is?  The BBBV is a proof.  Not an algorithm.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 08:59:50 PM
Sarkeizen:'How data is encoded....no answer from profitis here.
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'?   
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 24, 2015, 09:05:08 PM
Sarkeizen:'How data is encoded....no answer from profitis here.
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'?   
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"
 
Notice when you keep all your bullshit and troll-words out of your post.  You get a reply.  Try to follow that pattern in the future. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 09:09:33 PM
Sarkeizen:'I'm asserting that the BBBV restricts the creation of a machine'

How can it restrict the creation of a machine if it has nothing to do with machines 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 09:25:41 PM
(Now I'm going to have that coffee while mr sarkeizen tries to get out his knot)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 24, 2015, 09:27:12 PM
How can it restrict the creation of a machine if it has nothing to do with machines
You need to explain to me what "nothing to do with" means in that context. :)

The BBBV is a proof, it's a logical consequence.  In the same way that if A is true (with sufficient generality), that the opposite statement "not A" or !A is necessarily false.  So we can say the truth of statement A restricts the truth of statement !A.

In the same way the BBBV theorem restricts the truth of the statement: "I have a quantum device that sorts 'just like a computer' with complexity of O(1).

A five year old can understand this kind of exclusion.  It's amazing that your education was so poor that you can't.  Wherever you went to school should be held up as an example of exactly what not to do in educating people.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 24, 2015, 09:30:34 PM
(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. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 09:44:08 PM
Sarkeizen:'im asserting that the BBBV restricts the creation of a machine like the Philip Hardcastle quenco.'

How can a theorem restrict a machines performance and at the same time insist that you meant the above in a different context :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 09:49:26 PM
Sarkeizen:'Don't pop any more vitamins.  They seem to make you less smart. :)'

If it takes being dumb to get you into such easy corners give me more :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 24, 2015, 09:50:29 PM
How can a theorem restrict a machines performance
The 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).

Quote
and at the same time insist that you meant the above in a different context
Please rephrase in English.  I don't know what you're referring to as "a different context".
 
I'll just point out than in this current exchange I've asked you three or four questions concerning the questions you are asking and you can't answer them.  Isn't that kind of cool.  That you don't even know what you're talking about enough to answer a question like: "What do you mean by algorithm proof?".  Seriously your grasp of what you know is that shitty. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 24, 2015, 09:52:25 PM
If it takes being dumb to get you into such easy corners give me more :)
ROFL!

If I was cornered it would be trivial to produce a proof that I'm incorrect about something.  So far all you do is ask questions that are excessively vague and stupid. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 10:07:50 PM
Sarkeizen:'The BBBV restricts the ability to create a machine using quantum effects which has a complexity class of O(1) (for sorting)'

Will you allow me to attatch a switch to the quenco If I can show you how a quenco can work without violating this theorem
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 24, 2015, 10:12:43 PM
Will you allow me to attatch a switch to the quenco
Sure...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.

This is no different than someone saying: I've got a device which can deterministically determine if arbitrary program can terminate. 
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 10:18:23 PM
Sarkeizen:'Sure...in a separate thread'

..And mr sarkeizen backs out again.puk-puk-puuuuk (feathers fly allover the place :) ).chickenshit mr sarkeizen
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 10:22:00 PM
Sarkeizen:'ROFL!

If I was cornered it would be trivial to produce a proof that I'm incorrect about something.'

You won't allow it.you've banned switches,again :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 24, 2015, 10:24:06 PM
..And mr sarkeizen backs out again.puk-puk-puuuuk (feathers fly allover the place :) ).chickenshit mr sarkeizen
Awww, 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. :)

So here's a question that you can't answer: What exactly am I backing out of?  I said I had something to say about Philip Hardcastle's Quenco.  You admitted that what you want to discuss is NOT a Phlip Hardcastle quenco.  You want to make up some other thing to argue about.  I say fine.  Just put it in a thread about that thing. 

The fact that you won't is pretty interesting.  It would take you two seconds to do that.  So why are you letting me control this argument?   Probably because you can't make your point and you would do ANYTHING to stall things.

Me I'm happy to talk about both - just not in the same thread.  You can go on bullying some more if you like. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 10:45:21 PM
Sarkeizen:'What exactly am I backing out of?'

I said that I can SHOW you how a quenco can work WITHOUT violating bbbv theorem by adding a simpleton switch (doesn't interfere with quenco funtions) then you said you don't want to see it.this after I told you I won't budge to another thread. i really thought you were maybe,ya'know, keen to see how :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 10:47:43 PM
Sarkeizen:'You admitted that what you want to discuss is NOT a Phlip Hardcastle quenco.'

Where did I admit such a thing don't be ridiculous
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 24, 2015, 11:07:14 PM
Where did I admit such a thing don't be ridiculous
Hey English.  Congratulations.  Now try to stop speaking troll! :) :)

How can you add a switch to something that already possesses one?
You keep asking to ADD a switch.  Hence Philp's quenco has no switch.
You keep not wanting to discuss the Philip Hardcastle quenco and...almost BEGGING to add a switch. 
Hence you do not want to talk about Philip Hardcastle quenco.
If you do, by all means prove it by talking about it here. :)

QED.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 11:15:57 PM
Sarkeizen:'Hence you do not want to talk about Philip Hardcastle quenco.'

Lolololol heeeheeeheee :D imagine profitis not wanting to talk about quenco..g g giggle :)..wooooo mr sarkeizen's in such a fucking tight corner snicker snicker :D
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 11:29:38 PM
Sarkeizen:'How can you add a switch to something that already possesses one?'

Easy,you add another one
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 24, 2015, 11:33:28 PM
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.
Quote
.g g giggle :)..wooooo mr sarkeizen's in such a fucking tight corner snicker snicker :D
Doesn't seem like it.  As...

a) You refuse to discuss Philip Hardcastle's Quenco here and
b) You refuse to discuss your own shit-for-brains ideas elsewhere

If I'm in some kind of corner it would be trivial to do either of those but since you refuse.  It seems like the thing you want most is to stall the conversation.  :) :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 24, 2015, 11:37:26 PM
Sarkeizen:'How can you add a switch to something that already possesses one?'

Easy,you add another 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.

Well now you're stuck in a corner.  You can't talk about Philip Hardcastle Quenco without adding a switch and you refuse to talk about your shitty switched quenco somewhere else.

You lost. :)  I at least have an argument based on Philip Hardcastles Quenco - you only have pages of begging me to let you add a switch. :)  (and some posts where you clearly have no idea how complexity theory, computer science and mathematical proofs in general work)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 11:43:29 PM
Sarkeizen:'You refuse to discuss your own shit-for-brains ideas elsewhere'

Well according to you all claimed demons are a shit-for-brains-idea and since demons are pretty much what this whole threads is about then I don't see why its a problem for you to make one tiny addition to quenco,HERE ON THIS THREAD

??
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 24, 2015, 11:56:33 PM
Sarkeizen:'You lost.

Not by miles no ways.


Sarkeizen:' you only have pages of begging me to let you add a switch. :)'

Which you for some reason will absolutely not allow.to the point of even throwing tantrums about it
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 25, 2015, 12:20:56 AM
Quote from: me
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.
Quote from: me
you only have pages of begging me to let you add a switch. :)
Quote
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. 
Quote
to the point of even throwing tantrums about it
Is calmly telling you to put your shitty idea in another thread is a "tantrum" in Profitis land?  Or is this you just bullshitting again.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 25, 2015, 12:23:35 AM
Well according to you all claimed demons are a shit-for-brains-idea
Actually 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. 
Quote
and since demons are pretty much what this whole threads is about
Actually 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!
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 25, 2015, 11:42:07 AM
Sarkeizen:' I completely allow it in another
thread'

This reeks of fear of some sort.specificly, the fear of losing an argument over information and its direct logarithmic manipulation of disproportionate energy in front of large sections of demonology enthusiasts,without violating bbbv.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 25, 2015, 11:50:02 AM
Sarkeizen:'Is calmly telling you to put your shitty idea in another
thread is a "tantrum" in Profitis land?'

Calmly? You mean violently,to the point of even creating another thread in the hopes of luring an pro-bbbv opponoent far away from your inevitable public humiliations
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 25, 2015, 11:55:56 AM
Sarkeizen'This is 100% wrong'

Belies your totalitarian banning of switch-inclusion in the middle of a switch argument on the biggest demon-switch thread
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 25, 2015, 12:18:44 PM
Sarkeizen:'Look like it or not you can't provide an
argument based on what I originally said'

You originally said that bbbv fucks quenco.I want to show you how it un-fucks quenco with the addition of a simpleton switch which it will possess anyways in any realife application. you have strictly banned this,over here,what now?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 25, 2015, 02:16:38 PM
Yawn.  Well if you can't progress your argument against the Original Philip Hardcastle quenco then I'll just consider you to have conceded.  What you do about your ideas on other threads is your concern.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 25, 2015, 02:30:38 PM
Yawn its your fault.the original quenco will be using a switch in realife.there is no concession besides yours
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 25, 2015, 02:48:53 PM
Quote
the original quenco will be using a switch in realife
If you want to discuss switches.  I am absolutely eager to.  Just not here.  I even made a thread for you. :)

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 25, 2015, 02:55:58 PM
' Just not here.'

The original quenco will be using a switch in realife.thus your 'not here' doesn't qualify.I accept your concession and subsequent withdrawl from this thread
.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: MarkE on April 25, 2015, 03:11:56 PM
Where do you think there was a switch in the Quenco?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 25, 2015, 03:14:48 PM
MarkE'Where do you think there was a switch in the
Quenco?'

I'm talking about outside the quenco.in other words zero interference with the inside of the quenco
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 25, 2015, 03:32:20 PM
I can't move my argument forward without adding a switch
Fair enough. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 25, 2015, 03:49:32 PM
Where do you think there was a switch in the Quenco?
I think it's pretty obvious why Profitis is masturbating over a switch. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 25, 2015, 07:18:58 PM
-- Quote from: sarkeizen on Today at 02:55:58 PM ---you
can't move your argument forward without adding a
switch'

I can.because the proposed quenco is on and off at the same time in that case.that's the only difference.thus your prejudice against the device being switched on and off seperately is bonkers
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 25, 2015, 07:36:11 PM
Quote from: me
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. :)

Again, create another thread for your non-Philip solutions and I'm happy to talk about them there...or you can just talk there and leave this thread if...you know...don't really have anything more to say.  Because we're friends, I'll keep your secret. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 25, 2015, 08:10:25 PM
Sarkeizen:'Then do so.'

Sure buddy:) but first tell me something.what kind of event is a 0,1/2 event that you were talking about earlier and why is it allowed for quantum machines.if a 01 event is pre-deterministic like switching a light on and off then what is 0 1/2
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 25, 2015, 09:34:24 PM
but first tell me something.what kind of event is a 0,1/2 event that you were talking about earlier
Can you point me to where I was talking about an event?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 25, 2015, 11:14:06 PM
Sarkeizen:'Can you point me to where I was talking about an event?'

If two degrees of freedom of arrangement is 01 then how many degrees of freedom is represented by 0 1/2?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 25, 2015, 11:27:08 PM
Here.you wrote this:O(X^1/2).what does this mean. You restricted quenco's ACTIONS to that.'The BBBV restricts the ability to create a machine
USING quantum effects which has a complexity class
of O(1) (for sorting EVENTS) because the BBBV states that the
greatest improvement you can get from quantum
EFFECTS is O(X^1/2).'

If 01 represents a sorting EVENT what kind of EVENT is O(X^1/2)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 26, 2015, 06:34:49 AM
Here.you wrote this:O(X^1/2).what does this mean
Uhm...you posted several times about O notation acting as if you knew what you were saying.  Doesn't that mean you were bullshitting?

O(1) means that resource consumption remains constant with input size (not including the resources required to represent the input).
O(X) means that resource consumption grows at a constant rate with input size.
O(X^1/2) means that the resource consumption grows at a rate of X^1/2 with input size.

Can you figure out the rest on your own?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 26, 2015, 02:50:19 PM
Cumon mr sarkeizen if O1 is deterministicly time consuming due to two degrees of freedom and hence banned from quenco then what is O(X^1/2) and how much time does it consume(We doubt mr sarkeizen shall return to this thread)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 27, 2015, 08:03:52 AM
'O(X^1/2) means that the resource consumption grows at a rate of X^1/2 with input size.'

Excellent. so a dead switch with only one degree of freedom of movement (o) is basicly that.since a single electron can be in one position and two positions at the same time we can allow for a 01 and 01/2 simultaneously.thus bbbv isnot violated because of heisenberg uncertainty where we can be technicly oo and o1 at same time

Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 27, 2015, 08:09:21 AM
Your demon is bending not only space,but timeframes too.bbbv is not violated
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 27, 2015, 01:57:41 PM
thus bbbv isnot violated because of heisenberg uncertainty where we can be technicly oo and o1 at same time
Yawn.  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.

You could try reading the paper instead of constantly making things up and pretending they have something to do with this.  Derive your argument from actual knowledge rather than ignorance for a change. :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 27, 2015, 08:41:54 PM
Sarkeizen'Yawn.  I've already addressed this, there's no dependency on implementation'

Big mistake gunzo.you already described how bbbv should implementationarily ban a 01 from quenco.this was your fuckup not mine.bbbv bans instantaneous 01 from implementation.heisenberg unbans instantaneous 01 from quenco via 01/2
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 27, 2015, 08:48:24 PM
I would like to remind all children here that certain molecules in nature eg N2 molecule also posess one electron shared between two energy bands,at the same time
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on April 28, 2015, 12:22:13 AM
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.

Again if you read the paper instead of making things up....
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on April 29, 2015, 07:26:25 PM
You said that some aspect of implementation is banned by bbbv.how can some aspect of implementation be banned by bbbv if it has nothing to do with implementation.bbbv is not violated anyways regardless wether it has anything to do with implementation or not.heisenberg principle reigns supreme and you get a simultaneous 01 and 01/2 at the same time.what do you want to christen it then mr sarkeizen 011/2 sounds cool I leave it up to you
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeizen on May 01, 2015, 03:25:16 AM
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.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 02, 2015, 07:36:30 PM
Quote sarkeizen'Please cite specifically where I said that some aspect of implementation is restricted by BBBV.'

Let it go its no longer important.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on May 02, 2015, 09:05:15 PM
Let me tell you what is many miles more important.the fact that we're getting a cause and an effect,at the same time,blurring distinction between the two.this is more important than quenco itself.more important than you.more important than me
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sаrkeizen on June 19, 2015, 09:04:14 PM
Let me tell you what is many miles more important.
More important than you retreating from your own argument?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on June 20, 2015, 11:36:44 PM
Sarkeizen'More important than you exposing the futility of my
argument?'

Yes
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeіzen on November 10, 2015, 04:45:26 PM
Quote from: sarkeizen
More important than you retreating from your own argument?
Yes
Glad you agree.  I guess you realize that you made a mistake.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 11, 2015, 11:41:48 AM
"Glad you agree.  I guess you realize that you made a
mistake."

Nah cause/effect are at the same time bro when are you going to re-organise bbv theorem for us mr sarkeizen.your chance for fame
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeіzen on November 11, 2015, 04:45:19 PM
at the same time
Quantum computers provably take time process things.  Hence this is untrue.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 11, 2015, 05:26:56 PM
"Quantum computers provably take time process things.  Hence this is untrue"

Not this computer.Heisenberg electron provably takes no time to be in two places at once.hence this is true.you have no choice but to contest heisenberg principle effectively to use bbbv as a weapon here
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeіzen on November 11, 2015, 06:39:06 PM
Not this computer
Sorry. If it computes it takes time.  You can keep retreating if you like.  Perhaps to a position that this can't perform computations. :-)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 11, 2015, 07:31:15 PM
"If it computes it takes time."

It takes 3seconds yes.but the 3seconds passes instantly.welcome to quantum physics mr sarkeizen :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeіzen on November 11, 2015, 08:49:00 PM
It takes 3seconds yes.
So what you said was wrong.  Thanks again.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 11, 2015, 09:49:13 PM
"but the 3seconds passes instantly.welcome to quantum physics mr sarkeizen :)"
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeіzen on November 12, 2015, 02:47:48 AM
"but the 3seconds"
Which takes 3 seconds.  So you're wrong. :-)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 13, 2015, 06:34:12 PM
"Which takes 3 seconds.  So you're wrong. :-)"

Yes but instantly mr sarkeizen,let's split it halfway right for you halfway wrong for me deal? Deal :)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeіzen on November 13, 2015, 06:37:40 PM
Quote from: someone much smarter than profitis
Which takes 3 seconds.  So you're wrong. :-)
Yes
QED.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 13, 2015, 06:56:52 PM
"-- Quote from: profitis on Today at 06:34:12 PM ---Yes-No

--- End quote ---
DEQ
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeіzen on November 13, 2015, 08:42:16 PM
Quote from: someone who understands logic
Which takes 3 seconds.  So you're wrong. :-)
Yes
QED
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 14, 2015, 11:02:59 PM
"- Quote from: profitis on November 13, 2015, 06:34:12 PM ---No-Yes

--- End quote ---
EQD
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeіzen on November 15, 2015, 06:59:36 AM
Quote from: yawn
Which as you say takes 3 seconds.  So you're wrong. :-)
Yes
QED
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 15, 2015, 02:54:38 PM
"Which as you say takes 3 seconds.  So you're wrong. :-)"

Oh cumon mr sarkeizen,cumon now why don't you just take the out-of-court settlement and save yourself the energy? :>)

In your home computer instantly takes 3 seconds.in this computer 3 seconds takes instantly.what's the difference hahahaha
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeіzen on November 15, 2015, 08:10:55 PM
In your home computer instantly takes 3 seconds.
Three seconds takes three seconds on my home computer.  So again, you're wrong. :-)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 15, 2015, 10:25:10 PM
"Three seconds takes three seconds on my home computer.  So again, you're wrong. :-)"

3-seconds relative to what mr sarkeizen,relativeto your watch? Lol
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeіzen on November 16, 2015, 04:25:17 AM
In your home computer instantly takes 3 seconds.
Three seconds takes three seconds on my home computer.  So again, you're wrong. :-)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 16, 2015, 07:19:30 AM
"takes three seconds"

Oh really now..Takes it from where hahaha
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 16, 2015, 07:24:10 AM
"Three seconds takes three seconds"

Oh yeah? Prove it hahahahhahaaah ahhh
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeіzen on November 16, 2015, 01:19:20 PM
In your home computer instantly takes 3 seconds.
Three seconds takes three seconds on my home computer.  So again, you're wrong. :-)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 16, 2015, 03:01:09 PM
"Three seconds takes three seconds on my home computer.  So again, you're wrong. :-)"

Impossible.your computer didnt exist 3 seconds ago,it only exists now.unless you can prove it existed 3 seconds ago your computer violates bbbv too
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeіzen on November 17, 2015, 05:45:42 PM
Quote from: profitis
In your home computer instantly takes 3 seconds.
Three seconds takes three seconds on my home computer.  So again, you're wrong. :-)
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeіzen on November 17, 2015, 05:48:31 PM
Quote from: yawn
Which as you say takes 3 seconds.  So you're wrong. :-)
Yes
QED
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: orbut 3000 on November 17, 2015, 08:44:23 PM
So... What is Phil Hardcase up to these days?
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 17, 2015, 08:47:19 PM
Sarkeizen:"Three seconds takes three seconds on my home computer.  So again, you're wrong. :-)"

3 seconds does not take 3 seconds on your home computer mr sarkeizen quit lying.3 seconds takes no time
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 17, 2015, 08:57:26 PM
Sarkeizen:"Sorry. If it computes it takes time."

Yes but backwards.your computer goes 1,2,3,compute.thiscomputer goes compute,3,2,1.thiscomputer merely goes backward in time.bbbv says nothing about direction of time,it just says time
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 17, 2015, 11:01:43 PM
Quote from Bbbv "it takes time to compute"

Quote from me" in which direction?"
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeіzen on November 18, 2015, 04:27:45 PM
Quote from: yawn
Which as you say takes 3 seconds.  So you're wrong. :-)
Yes
QED
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 18, 2015, 10:23:11 PM
-- Quote from sarkeizen "---Which as you say takes 3 seconds backwards.
So you're right :-)"

Thank you :-)


--- End quote ---
DEQ
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: sarkeіzen on November 19, 2015, 04:26:50 AM
Quote from: yawn
Which as you say takes 3 seconds.  So you're wrong. :-)
Yes
QED
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: profitis on November 20, 2015, 10:05:17 AM
 Quote from sarkeizen"---Which as you say takes 3
seconds backwards.
So you're right :-)"


Thank you :-)

--- End quote ---
EQD
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: ramset on July 08, 2017, 12:20:29 AM
 Philip is still working hard on this!

http://revolution-green.com/mettec-and-more/

most definitely hoping him success.

Respectfully
Chet K
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: ramset on July 08, 2017, 06:04:21 PM
Some have a hard time with the link ??
so here is a repost from Simon


METTEC and more

by Simon Derricutt | Jul 7, 2017 | Free Work, Perpetual Motion, Research

Quote

I haven’t had a lot of time to comment over the last two and a half weeks or so, since Phil Hardcastle was here (aiming to use the fab at San Sebastian in Spain, about 2.5 hours’ drive away according to the routefinders) to get his devices made and we also were experimenting with the “kitchen fab” method that will enable anyone to make their own devices. We didn’t succeed in that yet, but found out a lot of the things we’ll need to get sorted in order to do that. Phil has applied for a patent on METTEC, which means that I can tell you a fair amount about what will make it go even if he has to keep a lot secret – it’ll take a big investment to mass-produce these devices and unless there’s some protection of the IP on it then that investment won’t arrive, which would leave us with the kitchen-fab method (which won’t produce the quality) as a slow take-up of the ideas.

This device relies on that odd quantum-physics property of tunnelling, and also that electrons aren’t actually fully confined to a metal object but are emitted from the surface and come back to it, and that this current is surprisingly large at a few hundred amps per square centimetre. It also relies on the strange property that a magnetic or electrical field will affect the trajectory of that tunnelling path. Both these strange properties are in general use in electronics devices, so I see no reason why we can’t apply them here. The diagram shows thus what happens to the emitted tunnelling electrons (in orange, and I forgot to add that in the keys). They are emitted in random directions but because of the magnetic field can only curve one way. Those at one side of a gap can jump the gap against a small potential difference, and thus lose some thermal energy in the process whilst gaining electrical potential energy. The scale at which this happens is interesting, in that the gaps need to be of the order of 2nm and the radius of curvature is thus of the order of 1nm or so, and the magnetic field needs to be pretty strong, of the order of 1 Tesla. These are dimensions and fields that are not easily-achievable with just messing around – you need to aim for the right result based on theory and design things on that basis. Maybe why this hasn’t been seen before, and the effect hasn’t been noted.

The design has gone through a number of iterations in aiming to get something easier to actually make. The high-tech fabrication methods on such experimental stuff are however somewhat expensive, and pushing the boundaries tends to end up failing so far (fabs also don’t really want to put a lot of effort into something that will damage their credibility), but it seems to me that there are some simplifications we can do which retain the principle and will at least show the effect to a measurable extent. It looks like the design will be very tolerant to some errors in fabrication (dirt, atomic flatness and suchlike) even though that will reduce the actual electrical output. With a bit of care, therefore, I think that it will be possible to fabricate these things on the kitchen table without spending an excessive amount on the kit required. It remains to be seen if we can do that. Phil will be getting his own (expensive kit, but secondhand) fab together to make them to a higher quality. Full clean-room, though limited in size. We’ve discussed some other applications of the underlying principle that seem pretty outrageous if the current mainstream physics is correct, since it seems that during tunnelling the electron doesn’t really exist and has no momentum. Somehow I don’t quite believe that, and it needs to be tested. If true, that could give us a rather interesting space drive, better than the EMdrive since it runs on heat not electricity.

Phil got the inspiration for this from Professor Fu in China – one of those giants whose shoulders we’re standing on. It’s worth reading Fu’s last document at https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0311104  which has been roundly condemned as being experimental error and/or misinterpretation. However, in reality Fu is simply using a magnetic field to alter the direction of emitted electrons – this involves a momentum exchange between the magnet and the electrons, and the electrical current produced, while small, is easily-understandable if you don’t hold 2LoT sacrosanct at all scales. 2LoT does not apply to single interactions that are influenced by a force-field, but to a lot of random interactions not under the influence of such a force. If each interaction is biased one way, then the average result will also be thus biased. Simples…. Fu and his son have been working on this for decades, refining the technique, but the actual power produced is so low that it has been dismissed as error of one sort or another. I’m told he’s hoping Phil’s experiment is successful, which will vindicate Fu and maybe get him the recognition he deserves. Maybe Fu’s wasn’t the first real Maxwell’s Daemon, but the others haven’t been recognised yet either.

It’s been pretty intense while Phil was here, and we spent a long time talking after the day’s experimentation was over. His home is half a world away in Australia, so timezones are opposite and finding mutually-convenient time has been tricky for exploring ideas. Bounce an idea up, chuck it around and see if it sticks. Anna (Phil’s partner) graciously kept us all fed and took care of the basics, which freed the time I normally spend in those necessities. I don’t (yet) have an electron microscope here or other expensive kit needed, so as regards the kitchen fab we’ve been flying blind and having to estimate thicknesses deposited – difficult when you can’t even see what’s there under a normal microscope. There’s more work to do and some more kit to buy before we can properly characterise what process will deliver the extremely precise (and small) dimensions that are necessary, and reduce it to something where time and temperature only need to be precisely-controlled. To John, I need to say we haven’t yet got far enough to be able to tell him how he can make his own devices. It will however be achieved, I think, before the end of this year.

What is quite interesting about this device is that the current that is output actually flows through the insulating layer of NiO, and not through the Nickel conductor at the base. As such, it’s a bit counter-intuitive. The devices themselves are very small, with the main area taken up by the contacts to get the current out, and the power available from each one will likely be in the order of microwatts. Since they are also very thin (active layers of the order of nanometers) they can however be stacked if the substrate is thin-enough (it only needs to be thick enough to handle, so a few microns) and the main problem will be getting the heat into the devices in order that it can continue to generate electricity. All it is doing is to impose a direction on the energy that is around, using a magnetic field as the organising force – this relies on Conservation of Energy in order to work.

I’ve learned some useful tips for my IR-PV project in the process, since Phil has had a fair amount of fab experience. I think I can solve my sputtering problems (mainly oxidation) and get smoother coatings than are normally achieved by such methods. I’ll thus be able to characterise the layers better, and Phil will help with some of the technical problems there too. We’ve also talked about a few other possible device structures. It’s nice to get instant feedback…. Phil and Anna are now on the way back home, via Spain and then a few other airports back to Oz. It’s a long flight.

I’ll put up another article on the theory later on, since that’s going to take a while to write and Phil also kindly donated some cough to me that he caught somehow in his travels (so I’m not in the best of health right now). Since Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax spent some time actually discussing the 2LoT ideas, I’ve seen where my explanations fall short in being convincing or illuminating, and though the calculation of “work done” is simply done and incontrovertible, we need to move from that to quantifying the exchanges of energy and momenta in transactions rather than fixating on macroscopic work. If we count the work joules, the underlying implication is that energy has been “used” somehow, and this is not a true representation of what is happening. Energy and momentum are transferred without losses, and after an interaction the kinetic energy may be moving in a different direction but the summed momenta remains the same. My thanks to Abd (and THH) for actually engaging and attacking the ideas, since that is something few people have done – mostly they’ve ignored them as simply wrong. Hopefully this time I can achieve the clarity that is needed to persuade a few more people to change their views of both energy-transfers and Perpetual Motion. In the meantime, I’ll be getting the experimental data to prove it.
Title: Re: quentron.com
Post by: hndassignmenthelp on July 19, 2017, 05:12:37 PM
My views on this are as under

Previously we had expected to make a public announcement in early May 2012, however we have revised our plans and now have scheduled to make available a full press release on June 11 (2012), to the extent that we can, without harming IP rights, we will also publish certificates, lab reports and video of operating devices.