Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 514816
  • *Total Topics: 15318
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 6
  • *Guests: 13
  • *Total: 19

Author Topic: Hardcastle/Solomon Thermionic Generator  (Read 41701 times)

Offline Philip Hardcastle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Hardcastle/Solomon Thermionic Generator
« Reply #30 on: July 31, 2008, 02:19:26 PM »
Hi Ceres,

Looks good.

Will add that to our supplier base folder.

Thanks.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Hardcastle/Solomon Thermionic Generator
« Reply #30 on: July 31, 2008, 02:19:26 PM »

Offline Sprocket

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
Re: Hardcastle/Solomon Thermionic Generator
« Reply #31 on: August 01, 2008, 12:31:53 AM »
....We need governments to be embarrassed into action by your making this a hot topic that they cannot ignore.....
Regards Phil H

Philip, as a former BigOil employee, I am curious to know what you think of the world's governments views regarding FE - would you agree with the widely held view (in FE circles) that there has been a policy of suppression for at least the last 50 years?

I find it bizarre that there has been hundreds of billions spent on the likes of hot fusion research - which even if it works, will simply be a paid-for replacement for current power stations - while at the same time, perhaps dozens of FE inventions have been systematically ignored/supressed, even though many have been successfully patented, so presumably work as claimed.....

Offline Philip Hardcastle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Hardcastle/Solomon Thermionic Generator
« Reply #32 on: August 01, 2008, 12:54:51 AM »
Hi Sprocket,

I am beginning to become disenchanted with government about FE.

However it is not a conspiracy but a function of stupidity.

For example, I showed my discovery to the local mp and he said it looked good and had merit (he holds a doctorate in something or other). He then spoke to 4 other politicians (3 local and 1 federal). They all eventually replied and said things like "try the samll business bureau".

The problem is that government is public opinion driven (that is how they get elected). And public opinion is press driven, the press dictates what is news. So if you have a press that believes Ms Brittney Speers is more important then FE to the public then that is what you get.

So as to the government spending billions on fusion etc.

Well it is the Emperors new clothing, Smart people (as a large collective) say to press and pollies that they have a solution and that it is the only option, the government subscribes to it lest the press call the government a fool.

Genuine technology comes from 1 person that can save the world and only requires about 1 penny per person to develop and it is mad science!

Despite my best efforts only a few websites and Nexus have listened. My local paper (circulation 2,000) also ran a piece but the local population ignored it.

Bigger paper in Tamworth said they would run a story but never did.

It does not sell newspapers because the readers believe that govt has the answers and if govt does not support it it must be rubbish. Govt does not support it because newspapers do not believe it sells copies.

It is an arrogant viscious circle.

I mass emailed physics departments and offered a cash prize for someone to show me a flaw, no takers but lots of hostility from scientists quoting the second law.

Science is also captive to the Emperors new clothing issue. The professors that agree with me wont say so publicly because they fear losing tenure.

Science is gagged by conservatism.

Govt is gagged by the need to be popular.

News is disinclined to report as it does not sell papers.

What we need is a revolution.

My science is solid and it is the solution but even here at overunity it fails to become a nucleus.

My view, and some will say I am arrogant, is that overunity should jump onboard and petition everyone to take notice of Rotating thermionics.

If the overunity group cannot back a winner then what chance is there that the press or govt will?

Anyhow, all this I write before I have even had my morning coffee, so if it is a bit dijointed you must forgive me.

BUT THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY

THERE IS HOWEVER UNIVERSAL ARROGANCE, APATHY, VANITY AND STUPIDITY

and politicians own more that their fair share of those attributes.

RegardsPhil H

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Hardcastle/Solomon Thermionic Generator
« Reply #32 on: August 01, 2008, 12:54:51 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Sprocket

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
Re: Hardcastle/Solomon Thermionic Generator
« Reply #33 on: August 01, 2008, 02:52:40 AM »
We will have to agree to disagree on the conspiracy issue - afterall, Stephen Mark, the (re)inventor of the TPU, has basically said as much, with working FE devices of Radio Shack-level technology, bought up and shelved like so many other inventions...

As for the lack of enthusaism from the OU crowd regarding the Thermionic Generator, it probably has a lot to do with the fact that it is most definitely not Radio Shack-standard kit, so replicating it is not really an option!  That, and the fact that most here probably believe that the energy industry has every government in the world in their back pocket, and if a bit of tech like this ever sees the light of day, it will be at their behest, and nothing to do with free-enterprise.  Given their track-record, and the general indifference you seem to be experiencing, I'd say you are in for an up-hill struggle...

Offline Philip Hardcastle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Hardcastle/Solomon Thermionic Generator
« Reply #34 on: August 01, 2008, 03:10:32 AM »
Hi Sprocket,

The thing is that no one has rung me and said a single threat.

No one has stopped me posting the science.

So where is the conspiracy, it is just a systematic failure.

Take women, they have organised themselves to push issues such as breast cancer, ovarian cancer etc.

They get publicity because they take a sound issue and push it. They don?t let anyone get in their way.

So you say there is a technology "TPU" that is being supressed.

You say it is Radio Shack level technology.

Well if that is the case why is it supressed. Surely overunity can back it or build it.

Sprocket, you care about these things, so do many others.

Might I suggest we need a leader, I vote for you.

Let us put it to a poll, we want to elect a leader to make things happen!

We want to decide if we have a technology here that needs support and then to do all we collectivley can to make it happen.

I vote for my science but I will listen to all nominations.

Collectively discuss the pros and cons of all nominations.

Get a letter to be sent to politicians and press.

Hold a rally somewhere.

Speak on radio.

Form chapters in every town.

The People power project!

And if there is a conspiracy let us get real evidence and publish it in say Nexus. Duncan Roads the editor is a good guy and he will listen to facts.

What do you say Sprocket.

Vote 1, Sprocket for president of the People Power Project.

Lets post this as a new subject.

Do I hear a seconder to this proposal?

Phil H

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Hardcastle/Solomon Thermionic Generator
« Reply #34 on: August 01, 2008, 03:10:32 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Philip Hardcastle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Hardcastle/Solomon Thermionic Generator
« Reply #35 on: August 01, 2008, 10:08:29 AM »
Hi All,

My apologies,

Election of a president not well received.

I will stick with science.

Please visit www.thermionicrevolution.com for latest info.

Please feel free to download the Nexus article about the device on the science news page.

Please feel free to leaving a comment on the contact page.

If you have any problems accessing the site please leave a message hear and I will advise the Web guy.

Best Regards

Phil H

Hi Tak22, Tinu, Sprocket, Ceres and all.


Offline Philip Hardcastle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Hardcastle/Solomon Thermionic Generator
« Reply #36 on: August 10, 2008, 02:05:01 PM »
Hi all,

A brief update.

A number of people have emailed me re the nexus article.

Some are amazed and some want more infromation.

Can I ask all interested physics guys here to post what they want expanding.

Some question the centrifugal effect and I refer them to Tolman?s work of 1915, I provide an extract below.

Some are a bit confused about energy in though I believe it is explained in the article in the science news section of the website.

Anyhow, if you can post what you want or would like to see I will gey busy.

Regards Phil

PS please be patient with the site as each page can take a few seconds to load.

I have asked the web guy to get rid of flash but he has not got round to it yet.

Some wanted better drawings and I will also attend to that in the next few days.

Also the site is being checked out by Steorn forum but when I tried to sign up it rejected my application. Does anyone know about Steorn forum? They have been checking out the website heaps of times.

Cheers

Tolman extract

FURTHER EXPERIMENTS ON THE MASS OF THE ELECTRIC
CARRIER IN METALS


By RICHARD C. TOLMAN, SEBASTIAN KARRER, AND ERNEST W. GUERNSEY


FIxZD NITROGEN RZSZARCH LABORArORY, WASHINGTON, D. C.


Communicated, March 21, 1923


Introduction.-The production of an electromotive force by the accelera-
tion of a metallic conductor was apparently demonstrated by the work of
Tolman and Stewart [Physic. Rev., 8, 97 (1916); 9, 164 (1917) ], by measur-
ing the pulse of electric current produced by suddenly stopping a coil of
wire rotating around its axis. The purpose of the work described in the
present article has been twofold. In the first place it seemed desirable
to obtain a new demonstration of this production of an electromotive
force by the acceleration of a metal, using some method of attack as dif-
ferent as possible from that of Tolman and Stewart, in order to increase
our certainty as to the reality of the effect. In the second place it seemed
desirable to try to find a method which would eliminate direct electrical
connections between moving and stationary parts, and would avoid the
sudden stopping of a coil of wire, 'with the attendant chance of irregular
electromotive forces due to buckling or slipping of the wire.


Apparatus.-The apparatus finally used consisted of a copper cylinder
91/8 inches long, 4 inches outside diameter, and 3 inches inside diameter,
oscillating about its axis with a frequency of 18.9 cycles per second.
Surrounding this copper cylinder was a coil containing about 60 miles of
No. 38 copper wire (diam. 0.1 mm.), which acted as the secondary of
a
transformer. Connection from this secondary was made through a spe-
cially designed three stage amplifier with a vibration galvanometer. The
tendency of the electrons in the oscillating copper cylinder to lag behind
because of their inertia leads to an electromotive force, the effects of which
were finally measured by the deflection of the vibration galvanometer.
These galvanometer deflections were then compared with those produced



VOL.9,1923 PHYSICS:TOLMAN,KARRERANDGUERNSEY 167


by the known electromotive force accompanying transverse oscillation of
the cylinder in such a way as to cut the earth's magnetic field.


The apparatus was mounted on a massive concrete pier in a special
location 150 yards from the nearest electrical circuits, was con-
structed without the use of magnetic materials, and was driven by air
pressure to avoid the disturbances which would have been produced
by electrical driving. The axis of the oscillating cylinder was made
parallel to the earth's magnetic field in order to reduce accidental
effects.


Theory of the Experiment.-The experiments consisted in comparing
the electromotive force produced in the cylinder by its rotary oscillation
with the electromotive force produced by its transverse oscillation in
such a way as to cut the earth's magnetic field. The elementary theory
of the experiment may be developed as follows.


If a longitudinal acceleration a is applied to a metallic conductor, the
electrons within the conductor will tend to move relative to the main
body of the metal as though the conductor were stationary and the elec-
trons were acted on by the force.


f = ma (1)


wheremmaybecalledthe"effectivemass"oftheelectron. Ontheother
hand if an electromotive force E is applied to a stationary metallic con-
ductor of length I and uniform cross-section, the electrons within the
conductor will be acted on by the force


f = Ee/l (2)


where e is the charge of one electron. Since the "fictitious" force given
by equation (1) and the "real" force given by equation (2) both tend to
make the electrons move relative to the main body of the metal, it is evi-
dentthattheymaybeequated inordertogetanexpressionforthe electro-
motive force produced by the longitudinal acceleration of a metallic
conductor. We obtain, for the electromotive force E, produced in a metal-
lic conductor of length 1, by an acceleration a the expression


E = mla/e (3)


Let us now consider the rotary oscillations of the cylinder around
its axis. At any radius r we may evidently write for the instantaneous
acceleration, the expression


a-47r2v20er sin 27rvt (4)



18PHYSICS:TOLMAN,KARRERAN)DGUERNSEYPROc.N.A. S.


where v is the frequency of harmonic oscillation and 0 is half -the angular
amplitudeofoscillation. Substitutinginequation(3)andtakingthelength
of the conductor at the radius in question as 2rr, we obtain


Fe = 8Xr3V2r2(m!e)Oe sin 2irvt (5)


as an expression for the electromotive force around a current sheet located
in the cylinder at the radius r.


Let us now compare this electromotive force with the electromotive
force produced by the transverse oscillation of the cylinder in the earth's
fieldusedincalibrating. IfQcisthe.halfangularamplitudeoftransverse
oscillation, we may write for the maximum flux through a current sheet
of radius r, the expression


9b max = iri>2H sin OC = 7rr2H6, (for small amplitudes) (6)


where H is total intensity of the earth's field. Hence for harmonic os-
cillation of frequency v, we may write for the electromotive force pro-
-
duced in carrying out the calibration the expression


c= 2ir2vr2HGc sin 27r't. (7)


Dividing equation (5) by (7) we obtain for the ratio of the electromotive
forces produced by the effect and in calibration the expression


E;eEc = (4wv/H),. (mle) . (Oe/IO) -(8)


or soiving for the thing of interest, namely the ratio of the effective mass
of the electron to its charge,. we obtain,


m/e = (H/47rv) . (EJEC) * (O,/O0e) (9)


This is the equation which was used in calculating our experimental re-
sults. It will be noted that the radius r of the particular current sheet
has dropped out so that Ee/EC may be taken as the ratio of the total elec-
tromotive forces produced by the rotary oscillation and transverse os-
cillation of the effect cylinder.


In carrying out the actual experiments, a comparison was made of the-
galvanometer deflections produced by the rotary oscillation of the main
cylinder and the transverse oscillation of a much thinner walled calibra-
tion cylinder, which was driven with the same frequency as the main.
cylinder and surrounded by a similar secondary coil. This made it
possible to eliminate variability in the behavior of the amplifier by ob-



VOL.9,1923 PHYSICS:TOLMAN,KARRERANDGUERNSEY


taining nearly simultaneous readings from the main cylinder and the
calibration cylinder. At the close of the experiments a "master calibra-
tion" was made comparing the electromotive forces produced by the trans-
verse oscillation in the earth's field of the main cylinder and the calibra-
tion cylinders which had been employed. We could than calculate the
ratio Ec/Ec which occurs in equation (9) by putting it equal to the ratio
of the galvanometer deflections obtained from the main cylinder and from
the calibration cylinder multiplied by the ratio determined in the master
calibration. The other quantities in equation (9) were determined by
direct measurement.


Experimental Results.-In all-, eighty-six measurements were made.
The average value of m/e in grams per abcoulomb was 5.18 X 10-8,
with an average deviation of 1.33 X 10-8. The average deviation divided
by the square-root of the nu,mber of observations was 0.14 X 10-8.


Conclusion.-It is felt that the work presented above may be regarded
as another fairly satisfactory demonstration of the production of elec-
tromotive forces by the acceleration of a metallic conductor, and as indi-
cating again that the mass of the carrier in metals is about the same as
the mass of an electron in free space. The new work taken by itself alone
is perhaps not as convincing as the work of Tolman and Stewart, because
of the greater complexity of the apparatus, because of the fact that time
did not permit a satisfactory neutralization of the earth's field, and be-
cause further developments of the method would be necessary in order to
show that the direction of the effect is that predicted on the basis of
a
mobile negative carrier. Our total certainty as to the reality of the effect
is, however, greatly increased by the fact that two such widely divergent
methods have led to concordant results.


Values of mle obtained in different ways are given below, in grams per
abcoulomb.


m/e in free space 5.66 X 10-8 (cathode rays)
m/e in copper 6.24 X 10-8 (Tolman and Stewart)
m/e in silver 6.73 X 10-8 (Tolman and Stebvart)
m/e in aluminum 6.50 X 10-8 (Tolman and Stewart)
m/e in copper 5.18 X 10-8 (Tolman, Karrer and Guernsey)


It is evident that.our data are not yet accurate enough to determine
whether the mass of the electron in a metal is precisely the same as that
in free space or not.


A more complete account of the experimental work containing a dis-
cussion of the sources of error in the work will be published in the Physical
Review. The investigation is being continued at the California Institute
ofTechnology.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Hardcastle/Solomon Thermionic Generator
« Reply #36 on: August 10, 2008, 02:05:01 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline sushimoto

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
Re: Hardcastle/Solomon Thermionic Generator
« Reply #37 on: February 06, 2009, 10:49:10 PM »
Hi,
does anybody know, why this an "sudden death" again?

Offline Elisha

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
Re: Hardcastle/Solomon Thermionic Generator
« Reply #38 on: February 07, 2009, 11:04:28 PM »
Please some one take a phone call to Hardcastle to know if all is ok.

The web site is down.

No news from 5 months.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Hardcastle/Solomon Thermionic Generator
« Reply #38 on: February 07, 2009, 11:04:28 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline tbird

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 317

Offline nothere2win

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: Hardcastle/Solomon Thermionic Generator
« Reply #40 on: February 08, 2009, 03:53:51 AM »
PESWIKI:
  NEC Specialist Assessment: Flawed in One Critical Matter

On September 18, 2008 8:58 PM Mountain, New Energy Congress member, Mark Snowswell, Ph.D. and specialist in this class of systems, wrote:

    "I have looked at this closely now and I am prepared to make an initial comment.

    "I believe this concept is flawed in one critical manner. That is the assumption that electrons released and captured at a given radius will flow freely down a potential gradient to a smaller radius. The increase in potential created by the current flow to a smaller radius will balance out any increase in thermionic emission at the larger radius.

    "I have no doubt that there will be a radial difference in work function for thermionic emission in a rotating frame of reference. However all attempts to utilize this difference will be exactly countered by the radial topology. When assessing proposals with radial topologies the use of 2D cross sections can be misleading as they hide the 3D volumetric variation with the square of the radius. In this respect sections normal to the axis of rotation can be more revealing.

    "There may be merit in investigating this class of device – but not within the limits the author as proscribed. The proposed device is bounded by the classical framework that the author’s arguments lie within – that is a closed energy system. If however it were to be combined with the novel electric and magnetic configurations that others (such as the Roschin & Godin) claim anomalous effects from then it may have merit."

- - - -

On September 19, 2008 5:30 PM Mountain, Mark Snowswell added:

    "I would like to add some notes:

    "I wrote an opinion based on the material available. It was not a commentary on the author or anything other than a simple opinion on a specific device proposal.

    "As I said in the last paragraph – the (new) class of device has merit (it should be investigated) – However I would advise adding provision for controlling magnetic and electrostatic environments within the device in a manner that Roschin and Godin and others have done in devices they report have anomalous effects.

    "As always, I fully support all efforts to discover and invent novel ways to create energy and replacement technologies for the primitive ones we now employ.

    "Finally – My personal advice to anyone proposing novel energy mechanisms would be to do one of two things: Base their proposals wholly on extrapolation from experimental prototypes (and avoid any theoretical discussion): or, Develop an theoretical framework that predicts the origin of energy and how it is to be harnessed. If you can do both – all the better.

    "The first method is what most experimenters in this field employ – observe an anomaly (outside currently understood explanations) and then design new devices to exploit the anomaly. The second method is far more difficult although I can think of one compelling example in Blacklight Power... Randal Mills (Blacklight Power) has a credible theory that supports his experimental observations that energy can be released by dropping electrons to a lower energy state than was previously (classically) thought possible."

- - - -

On September 19, 2008 5:55 PM Mountain, Mark Snowswell added:

    "I don’t believe [Philip's] proposed device would work as he has designed it ... but I am intrigued by the use of Thermionics, something I had not seen before in this context.

    "I would advice that he add a radial magnetic field + HV bias and then apply sharp, short duty cycle, pulses on top of that. I would expect anomalous results based similarities with other devices... the addition of thermionics to free energy research is novel and worthy of experimental investigation.

HARDCASTLE´s RESPONSE TO A PERCEIVED ATTACK

Below are the response, in italics, to the attack on me following my instructions to withdraw my work from Peswiki. Despite me prohibiting Sterling Allan and Peswiki from using my materail they have reposted it.

My wish to leave peswiki was because I felt it was not taling real ideas serioulsy but instead supporting claims from some that are unfounded and to my mind in danger of leading unsuspecting persons to believe there are devices currently available that make electricity from nothing.

My view is that proper science must be the basis for theories and my confidence in the peswiki top 100 is very poor.

AS said I tried to leave but instead they display my copyright without my permission and then go on a public attack of me.

Please take note below is the words of their expert, a biochemist who now does computer graphics, they say is the best they have, my response is in italics, excuse some of my words but they have made me very angry by these unconscionable tactics.

It is my intention to take legal action and to sue for malicious damage, illegal use of my copyright etc

Philip


I believe this concept is flawed in one critical manner. His beliefs are not science.

That is the assumption that electrons released and captured at a given radius will flow freely down a potential gradient to a smaller radius.

Electrons are not released or captured at a given radius, the theory quite clearly says, refer to the vacuum return version, that electrons do work to escape, as far as the device is concerned the escaped electrons can drift off to infinity. The work done is converted to an emf in the rotor. There is no determined potential gradient for “the electrons��? to flow down. In any case if we were to measure the potentials at the outer it would be negative, and at the inner it would be positive, so if we choose to recycle the electrons emitted they would need to go from negative to positive, well no problem doing that, and as to how fast well that is irrelevant, and if irrelevant then it can be at a pico-electronvolt or a femto-electronvolt or any amount of energy, just so long as it drifts to the inner. And if at a nano, micro or even milli-electron volt of energy that is a fraction of the work done which will be hundreds of milli-electron volts.


The increase in potential created by the current flow to a smaller radius will balance out any increase in thermionic emission at the larger radius.

How can a femtovolt or a nanovolt balance out the increase in thermionic emission, in fact what the heck is he talking about? Even if this was other than rubbish how can he assume equivalence if the work done in a recycled electron is totally at the discretion of the design.


I have no doubt that there will be a radial difference in work function for thermionic emission in a rotating frame of reference. OK

However all attempts to utilize this difference will be exactly countered by the radial topology.

Assumption and gobbledy goop


When assessing proposals with radial topologies the use of 2D cross sections can be misleading as they hide the 3D volumetric variation with the square of the radius. In this respect sections normal to the axis of rotation can be more revealing.

What the heck? Someone tell me what all this is!


There may be merit in investigating this class of device – but not within the limits the author as proscribed.

Unsupported attack of a non scientific kind


The proposed device is bounded by the classical framework that the author’s arguments lie within – that is a closed energy system.

Is that him repeating his thesis where he says the second law is absolute, wonder why such a person would be asked to review a technology that goes against his own stated belief.


If however it were to be combined with the novel electric and magnetic configurations that others (such as the Roschin & Godin) claim anomalous effects from then it may have merit.

Well now he can predict the future, imagine the unknown and fart whilst chewing gum!

Mark Snoswell.


Mark if you want to be a big shot and critique me do it properly, make it coherent and stick to facts. You have my email and I will be only too happy to publish our discussion and I will get a qualified opinion from an actual professors of physics with expertise in the field. PS do you want to send me a copy of the instruction you got to do what you did?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Hardcastle/Solomon Thermionic Generator
« Reply #40 on: February 08, 2009, 03:53:51 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Philip Hardcastle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Hardcastle/Solomon Thermionic Generator
« Reply #41 on: February 24, 2009, 10:27:04 AM »
After Peswiki and associates promised me funding they got me to do pages and a radio interview.
Then they lost interest and said they did not have any money.

So I thought, they are getting donation, going to conferences etc.... so they are getting something.

So I thought if I looked at the other items on their site and they seemed like cons or bull then perhaps all they want is suckers like me to keep the donations coming.

So I withdrew my work, then the fireworks began including them getting some fool to have a go at my physics.

I challenged the fool to a debate but he slinked away.

Anyhow that is the final word on peswiki from me.

You will see I have posted a new article on overunity about Curled BallisticThermionics. The RTG is not dead but the CBTG is such a simple device that can be so easily constructed, and so obviously shows a violation of the Second Law (Kelvin statement), that I wanted to release it to you asap.

Phil H

Offline sushimoto

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
Re: Hardcastle/Solomon Thermionic Generator
« Reply #42 on: February 24, 2009, 10:45:50 AM »
Hi Phil,

At least, we are just happy, that you are fine and healthy :)

best,
sushi

Offline Philip Hardcastle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Hardcastle/Solomon Thermionic Generator
« Reply #43 on: February 24, 2009, 12:06:13 PM »
Hi Sushi,

Nice of you to say so.

Live long and prosper.

Phil H

Offline Philip Hardcastle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Hardcastle/Solomon Thermionic Generator
« Reply #44 on: April 08, 2009, 07:26:57 AM »
Hi,

Just thought I would put this back to the top as it stands as being without identified flaw.

It will become apparent shortly that this and Curled ballistics is leading to something really big that I will disclose when I have a working device that can power a lightbulb from ambient air.

Phil

 

OneLink