Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
2nd "law" violations => Heat to electric energy conversion => Topic started by: tak22 on June 24, 2008, 06:27:35 AM
-
This definitely looks worth looking into ...
http://www.thermionicrevolution.com/ (http://www.thermionicrevolution.com/)
By combining rotation and points, we can produce an effective 0.15ev work function.
The drawing shows how these effects can be incorporated in a design. It shows
(in cross section) a red disk spinning on a 240v AC dynamo shaft. Above the disk
is a ring magnet (yellow) which is connected to magnetic iron (grey). At the outer
edge of the disk there is an array of sharp points. The disk gets replacement
electrons via a very sharp (for low loss) secondary needle array (top of orange.)
The dynamo (blue) works initially as a motor to get the disk up to design speed,
then it is a dynamo. As electrons are emitted from the outer surface, a current flows
through the disk. That current passes the magnets and induces a torque in the disk
which then turns the dynamo. Electrons are replaced at the same rate they were
emitted from the disk via the extra sharp secondary needle array (top of orange).
This also transfer some heat. Heat flows to the disk from the upper and lower case.
At a work function of 0.15ev, we do work of 2.4E-20 Joules per emitted electron. At a
n edge speed of 300m/s replacement electrons use 4.1E-26 Joules to get up to edge
speed. The net work available for torque (output) is therefore 2.39E-20 Joules. Allowing
for losses, we estimate output at 3Kw, for a 150cm diameter disk.
tak
-
I've invited Paul Solomon to stop by here and give us any insight he's willing to on this,
and I encourage others to go to the Thermionic website and let them know of your interest.
We don't get very many developers publicly saying this:
We, Philip Hardcastle and Paul Solomon, give to the World permission to make
electricity with our device for personal home use free of charge.
We do this - not only because the aim of this project was to help the world - but also
because we feel it would be immoral for us to do otherwise.
tak
-
Is this an idea or do you have a working prototype?
Could you describe the idea behind your invention.
I have no ideo how this works.
AlanA
-
Allan,
Sorry, I should have made it clearer in the first post that I was quoting the inventors.
Everything to know about this can be found by reading the website. Here is the base
idea as stated by Paul Solomon:
It was possible to replace temperature difference with acceleration in the thermionic process,
i.e. to trick the metal into acting as if it were several hundred degrees hotter than what it actual was.
tak
-
Howdy Y'all,
This device looks like a modified Searle Disk Generator. In principle the Searle Disk uses centrifugal force to sling electrons off the disk. This creates a voltage between the center of the disk and the periphery. This also induces a donut, or toroid shaped EM field around the device. The faster you spin the disk, the greater the voltage and larger the induced EM field. Dr. Searle had a problem with his disks getting airborne and flying off into space. Have you guys seen this problem yet? I am really intrigued with your design. I think there is great potential in it. I have tried a Searle Disk once, but it was not nearly sophisticated or balanced as it needed to be to produce the Searle Effect. Here is a link.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4135.0.html
I'll get back to that eventually. Got lots of other projects keeping me busy at the moment.
Good luck with you generator...
Blessed Be Brothers...
-
More info, no details, but Philip Hardcastle seems pretty passionate about his theory. :)
From: "Philip Hardcastle" <pjhardcastle@gmail.com>
Subject: Dear physicists and press
Date: 21 June 2008 10:34:11 BST
To: a.bakich@physics.usyd.edu.au, a.blake@physics.usyd.edu.au,
a.derekas@physics.usyd.edu.au, a.rahmani@physics.usyd.edu.au,
a.richardson@physics.usyd.edu.au, aall3200@mail.usyd.edu.au,
aaron.chippendale@csiro.au, adam@physics.usyd.edu.au,
albada@physics.usyd.edu.au, alexv@physics.usyd.edu.au, "Ali Shakouri"
<ali@soe.ucsc.edu>, ali@soe.ucsc.edu, aloysius@physics.usyd.edu.au,
anant@physics.usyd.edu.au, "Andrew Das Arulsamy" <andrew@physics.usyd.edu.au>,
"Andrew Simmons" <a.simmons@physics.usyd.edu.au>, apisit@physics.usyd.edu.au,
apoh@ucsc.edu, aquino@physics.usyd.edu.au, arider@physics.usyd.edu.au and 242 more…
Despite my offer of a cash prize for someone to actually tell me where the flaw is no one has.
Despite the fact that I am not the only scientist to question if the second law is so absolute that it cannot be debated, you all
know so much that you can declare me irrational and therefore the hypothesis unworthy of thought by you.
Despite the fact that my motivation is to try and save humanity from starvation and destruction I am treated like rubbish.
Despite the fact that the World is slowly cooking itself and not one of you has an answer, yet still you scorn me and refuse to
consider a reasonable hypothesis.
Despite the fact that 3 prominent physicists privately have decalred I might be right yet no one dares to publicly say so.
Despite the fact that we are in a supposed age of enlightenment and of communication no one will repeat my words for debate.
Despite the fact that Prof Mahan said power can be produced from ambient if there were a stable low work function you ignore
my idea.
Despite the fact that prof Sheehan and others work on thermionic proofs of a violation of the second you feel you all know all
that there is to be known.
Despite the fact that there is no proof of the second law and that everyone knows there are already known violations of the
second at micro levels yet the second to you all is so absolute.
Despite all the above and my growing distaste of the human race that is prepared to be transfixed by the life of a Brittney
Spears while the world burns and children die, I still hope that amongst some of my here audience there are some with a
conscience and half a brain that can figure that telling others that there is a new hypothesis that needs to be proved or
disproved, is more logical, ethical and professional than simply being so arrogant as to declare me as mad.
I will succeed in getting public attention even if I have to go on a hunger strike outside the Prime ministers residence.
I will have this email published even if I have to pay to do so.
So i ask for the sake of everyone, use your intelligence, your influence and your good conscience to get a debate going.
Philip Hardcastle
tak
-
Dear Tak and others,
As I am in Australia and getting very busy I will not be all that regular here.
I have been asked by Nexus to do an article for their next publication and this article will probably answer all your questions.
I am very passionate and also very sceptical. I have been in physics and engineering all my life and if I saw my claim i would say it was mad.
So I have spent more time trying to prove myself wrong than going forward.
However the amount of physicists who concede they can find no flaw grows.
So what does one do if no one can identify a credible flaw other than quoting the 2nd law.
I even previously offered a cash prize to the University of Sydney Physics dept but got no takers.
I know the second law is a big issue and I will be dealing with it to the extent that I and professor Daniel Sheehan believe it does not strictly apply to thermionics.
I have argued the issue with no less than 4 professors and countless doctors but always end up with them saying the same old repeated lines "you can?t win".
I should have a substantial posting late next week.
I also want to advise that there will be some disclosure of high power to weight devices (50Kw for 500Kg) we believe will be feasible for locomotion applications.
For now
Best Regards to All from Australia
Philip Hardcastle
P.S I posted elesewhere so I shall say so here. please be patient about building one for the cost of a super balanced rotor with precision micro-points is very expensive for a one off.
When we have resolved how to get one for a few thousand we will advise on our website and here.
-
So what does one do if no one can identify a credible flaw other than quoting the 2nd law.
The Second Law doesn't matter. This is not a heat engine.
Anyway, the Second Law has never been proved.
There a dozens of second law violations; the darlings even have their own thread on this board.
What I do not understand is why this is not nay more than a homopolar generator with the output termials shorted.
-
Paul R,
You are right to the point that the homopolar is a motor / generator.
If the net work done exceeds the load including friction, then the unit tends to increase its rotational speed.
A shorted homopolar device such as a high current welder converts mechanical torque to welding current and hence to welding heat.
This is working in almost the exact opposite. Heat gives rise to thermionic emission which give rise to current flow which causes torque (by intersecting the magnetic filed), and the shaft via an ac generator puts power to the grid or to the house.
This device is simple and yet very complex. The old saying applies, a picture is worth a thousand words and yet even a thousand words cannot convey the total interwoven dynamics of the device.
It is suffice to say that the only way for the work done by an electron having say a 100,000m/sec velocity, which then escapes and is in vacuum and kinetically spent, to be transformed (conservation of energy _ the first law) is to either heat the rotor by joules heating or to rotational acceleration of the rotor.
As the ohmic / Joule heating is an order of 1000 times less than the emission work for a metal such as stainless steel the bulk of the transformation has to be in rotation.
The interesting thing about the device is that the answer to where energy goes is self evident as there is no exhaust, IE it must go somewhere.
Hope this helps
Regards
Philip
-
Dear Folks and Tak22,
Thought you might like a 3D view of a more complete design.
It shows a high power unit (50KW) suitable for conversion of 100% solar introduced by optic cables.
Notice that the rotor outer edge is interleaved to increase heat transfer to the rotor.
This unit is much smaller that the basic home unit (40cm diameter)
Currently I am writing what may turn out to be the hottest debate paper ever on free energy as I believe it solves in the favour of free energy maxwell?s demon.
Will post excerpts in due course.
To all those that believe in this I ask that you might try and get some publicity for the technology.
The more we can spread the word the sooner Governments and Universities will come to our aid.
The sooner we get the proof of concept built the sooner we can gear up for mass production to save the planet.
Best Regards to all from Australia
Phil H
-
@ Phil H
Before saving the planet and everything, a couple of questions about the basic assumptions you?ve made:
1. Why do you think that work function would be smaller at the edge of a rotating disk?!
2. Why do you also think that by using needles the work will decrease too?!
I suppose you don?t really have any experimental data/proof on the above (otherwise it would have been already posted on your site, right?) so, a theoretical approach will do it for me.
Many thanks,
Tinu
-
@Tinu
Hi,
Question 1 Answer, well the binding force on a surface electron is work function and it is electrostatic.
A force acting against the work function effective reduces the binding force. Now this as it happens was proved almst a century ago by Tolman (and was prior to that suggested by Maxwell).
The expeiments of Tolman have been scrutinised and repeated and confirmed.
It turns out from tolmans equation that the Voltage produced for 316m/sec at a radius of 1m is 5mv.
At 1000m/s (if we could go that fast) we would get 50mv.
And at 10,000m/sec it would be 5v (but no metal could stand that speed)
But just for a moment let us say we could.
If we started off with a metal of 5.15ev work function we would have reduced it effectively to 0.15 and so at room temp electrons in large numbers would escape to vacuum and in doing so do 0.15ev work.
0.15ev = 2.4E-20 Joules
Now to get a replacement electron up to 10,000m/s we would need 1/2 x 9.109E-31 x 10,000 x 10,000J = 4.55E-23 Joules
This is 1/527th of the work done by the escaping electron. Or in other words 527x over unity.
So if we had super alloy we could just do it directly, but alas we do not and so we need to essentially lever the electrons off with topography.
Q2 A.
Now the issue of work function and topography is a given. A smooth surface has a higher work function than a rough one.
As you know crowding occurs at a sharp point and if you imagine the centrifuge is pushing electrons to the tip yopu can see that the work function is being overcome by the mutual repulsion of the free electrons.
I hope this short answer helps you.
Regards Phil H
-
@ Phil H,
Hi,
Richard C. Tolman? Please post a link to the equation (and experiment) you mentioned.
Meanwhile, let?s get a step back. Some things seems very badly mixed to me. Therefore, let?s forget about rotation for a second. Assume as you wish, a 5.15eV work function. Assume the temperature you consider appropriate for your purposes. No needles. Perfect smooth surface, free of defects and contaminants. Place a sensitive ammeter in between the armature and (stalled) rotor. What would be the current resultant from thermionic emission as per Richardson? (A numeric value for current density would do it too; it would also prove the many, many orders of magnitude smaller than the one needed in a Faraday motor)
Now place a 5V battery between the armature and (stalled) rotor. What would be the new current?
Finally: What if the external battery voltage goes to 5.15V? How does it affect the current? Make it 9V.
You imply that the work function is completely overcome and thus current tends to increase toward large (infinite) values. That?s wrong. Mentioning a vacuum diode is sufficient to see your fallacy.
Waiting for your reply before moving futher.
Cheers,
Tinu
-
@ Tinu,
Your idea of a simple 5v battery or 9v battery is just wrong. But it is a point I made in a separate explanation as it happens because it is an easy path to blunder into.
A voltage applied is not the same as the surface potential as it is not a 5v electric field starting at the rim. That is to say the induced voltage is the displacement of the surface electrons relative to the outermost matrix.
In Tolman they used an isolated conductor (such that there were no replacement electrons) and the conductor was wound as a big coil and brought to a stop at the outside of a rotating disk. Previous attempt to just spin a disk had proved troublesome as it involved a brush which induced reading errors so they had an equivalent arrangement to induce a g force (when the coil hit an end stop).
Anyway they equated f = ma to F = Ee where m is the electron mass and e the electron charge.
This led to an equation E = L x m x a / e
The L part is interesting (note when I first had the idea I did not know of tolman and arrived at it purely theoretically) as it cancelled out by the "a", by this I mean a radius of say 1 unit gives the same result as a radius of 1/10th as for a constant tip velocity a increases while L decreases.
Please also note that the Tolman value is for an isolated system and that in a system where electrons can enter the conductor the field / voltage is much higher. This potentially means that if the system were charged the rotational velocity would reduce, however that is something that will in my opinion need a test bed experiment.
So what you have in essence from Tolman is a view of a trillion trillion electrons on springs connecting to the ion matrix and the voltage so described is related to the force in the springs.
A 5v battery connected on the centre of a stationary disk looks nothing like this, and even more so if the outer edge is not in extreme close proximity to the collector.
We all know that a smooth electrode in vacuum requires many many volts per mm of gap.
Lastly I enjoy a discussion but I would prefer if you were not quite so aggressive as to use "your fallacy".
If there is a mistake I welcome the identification of it and have in thousands of conversations with professors asked for just that. You might well find a mistake with your passion but I suggest that you could do it a bit less aggressive, after all I came here by invitation of Tak22.
That is not to say that I do not appreciate and respect your viewpoint, but don't start out by assuming me to be a fool.
Regards
Phil H
-
@ Phil H,
I have to explain myself: Fallacy in my dictionary (and in my culture) primarily means ?erroneous belief?. If you find it offensive, I deeply apologize. I have my own fallacies (everyone has) and it doesn?t make me fool; it never crossed my mind to such interpretation.
As about surface potential, I see your point as you certainly saw mine. We shall get to it as soon as I read more about Tolman. However, Faraday motor requires considerable current and I still find hard to believe that a feeble thermionic current (micro to mili Amperes, at best) is able to exert more than a totally negligible force on a massive rotor. That?s why I?ve asked for estimates. Hopefully you?ll agree that without having enough current, the device lacks the prime mover and this is a major issue, isn?t it?
Best regards,
Tinu
-
@Tinu,
Glad we got the cross culture issues sorted. No offense taken or meant.
The current is not milliamps for an effective work function of 0.15.
total current flowing in the disk in the design is 10,000+amps, given a surface area of the rotor (domestic unit 150cm dia) of 5000cm2 this equates to a few amps per cm2 which is way less that 300K thermionic emission. However the rotor temperature drops to a point of equilibrium where heat in (case radiative transfer etc) is equal to rotor current by work done (say 0.15ev).
Interestingly the device is self governing for if it spins too fast the effective work function goes to zero and thus no work can be done and so the disk receives no further torque, nifty eh?
Regards to my friend Tinu
Phil
-
Hi. Just visited your site - amazing invention if it pans out and goes into production. (important that!) Also, got a chuckle reading that you are "coming over from the Dark Side", having worked extensively for bigoil and its cohorts in the past :)
One or two layman's questions if I may:
1. Why is the 50KW unit much smaller than the domestic 3KW one - is it just a better design or is there more involved?
2. My crummy math tells me that the 3KW unit would rotate at about 4000RPM - do you know would the self-power aspect kick in before this, and at what point would it 'self-govern'?
3. If the 4000RPM is correct, and given the much smaller diameter of the 50KW unit, to achieve the same 300m/sec edge-speed and then produce almost 20 times the power output suggests that it is rotating insanely fast - what would its speed actually be?
Thanks.
-
Hi Sprocket and folks,
The 50kw unit operating at up to 1200K and thus its transfer of energy in is 256x the ambient unit so for just 1 square meter of radiative transfer (case to rotor) we get more than 50kw (in fact closer to 100kw). Of course the conversion efficiency is still beyond theoretical carnot as the unit does not dump heat to an exhaust.
It is suited to take any hot gas, including compressed air, solar or even fissionable material and also is suited to use in conjunction with other devices to get that higher temp energy by heat pumping.
Now this is the really amazing thing, if a heat pump is driven by the unit and the unit is 99% efficient the energy from ambient plus the energy driving the heat pump both supply the near perfect efficiency unit therefore....Yes we can raise ambient to whatever we need!
This is not so easy to understand but if you draw a diagram you will see what I mean.
We have received good news from government who look like they are taking the device very seriously.
The device and science is the real thing and they are beginning to see that.
Watch this space, really big things are going to happen.
Might I ask readers to spread the news so the thermionic revolution becomes like wildfire.
Yes the large low power ambient unit spins at 3000-3600rpm to match existing ac grid. Overunity operation is designed to begin at about 5% below operational speed. As you can appreciate the effective work function drops at the square of velocity so there is a fairly tight band between starting to produce significant power and operational speed and overspeed where output torque falls back to zero.
This is why it is very handy to have grid supply to get the unit up to design speed, it requires absolutely no control circuitry.
Hope that clarifies things
Phil
-
Phil,
Thanks for coming here and keeping us informed of your progress, and I hope you find a government somewhere that is willing to take on an active role. It's one of the modern mysteries why more governments at all levels don't take a more hands on approach, and just sit back and complain about big issues just like most of their citizens. Must be the prevalent gov/business disfunction.
You stated that you're giving this tech free to anyone in the world, but the gotcha appears that we have to wait until we can purchase a unit. Do you see this tech evolving to a point that we can build (with really good tools), or contract out the construction?
Also, about the 10:1 sharp points, do you see nanoscale surfaces being used?
tak
-
Hello Philip,
some tome ago I did research on tungsten-welding-rods and found this information which ist of importance to this subject here :
http://huntingdonfusion.com/HFT/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=11
Now I will attach a gernan brochure here of this product called Multistrike-Electrode ( does not contain radioactive Thorium) because it gives more details on the property of this material which ist not listed in the englisch website of huntingdonfusion.com.
I have makred the relevant information in the attached pic.
The english term "work-funktion" egals the german tern "Austrittsarbeit"
Wolfram = tungsten.
As you can see the offer a tungsten alloy with a work-funktion of 2.9 eV
Hope that this is of interest here.
Best Regards
Kator
-
Hi All,
Firstly @tak22,
Hi, I am happy to have accepted your invitation.
I had a good conversation with tinu and others.
As to your questions.
I do not know how hard or simple rotor production may be.
It may be that a carbon nanotube deposition or micro crystalline diamond done by simple cvd may do the trick.
It may also be possible to knurl the pattern on if a small Tungsten carbide impression roller was laser cut. It might cost $10,000 but allow a 100 rotors to be patterned.
I am a physicist and do not pretend to know enough about metallurgy etc.
My view is that once a proof of concept is done and in the affirmative, and I honestly cannot see a failure (that is not to say there won?t be potential adjustments or rethinks on commercial designs), then good people like those here can gear up to make them for their town.
Like we said there is no royalty but that does not stop people charging for their work and hopefully governments will give you grants to aid local production.
So the bottom line is that this is a revolution that needs to grow big but then it will spread to workshops across the world.
Now to Kator01,
Hi, I do know of a number of doped tungsten surfaces and some other complex surfaces that even go down to about 0.8ev.
such is how tantalizing this is that mankind has gotten close but can never get a result whilst thinking in the limited terms of the past.
To me rotational thermionics liberates mankind as we can use ordinary materials in an extraordinary way.
Now one last thing to all and I will offer this to TAK22, if you contact me at pjhardcastle@hotmail.com (a temp email address) I will pass to you an article I have been writing for a science magazine)
It has some good stuff about a proof that the second is violated (or perhaps it might be said that part of the second does not apply) and it has a very good diagram about a vacuum manifold for electrons that adds a lot to the understanding of the unit and simplifies analysis.
So if you can post some bits to this website it would be appreciated. Not all though as it is many pages long and it is might upset the mag if you print all of it prior to the mag issue date.
Regards to all
-
@ Phil,
Thanks ...and I hope that our conversation is not over.
I?m silent because I still waiting for more info to digest. I couldn?t find good relevant literature about Tolman. There are issues I still disagree. For instance, to me the device is clearly a thermodynamic machine: it transfers heat from the rotor to the stator/armature. There is always a hot source and a cold source. If the cold source does not maintain its temperature (i.e. cooling is not enough) its temperature will simply increase up to the point when thermionic emission from the armature will balance and eventually will exceed the thermionic emission from the rotor. Same if the rotor is not heated: it will cool down up to the point when machine stops.
In essence, so far I agree the device may work as a thermodynamic machine either in normal mode (heat to work conversion) as well as in reverse mode (refrigeration). But in this respect, Carnot is still the king unless otherwise proved; hence I can not buy the overunity aspect as of yet. I can?t wait to see the proof but in the absence of it my education holds me back of being optimistic.
The other major issue is the one I don?t believe such a machine will be built soon (if ever) without solid proofs of evidence and rigorous calculus. We speak about a massive rotor perfectly balanced, rotating in high vacuum at very high speeds (possibly insufficient, though) and also there are many other engineering challenges (needle array, surface requirements, purity etc). I don?t say the device in its entirety it?s pure heresy but at least breaking the large problem in smaller steps is something logical that, imho, may and should be done long before moving toward and before getting to the final setup. For instance, a 1cm2 of whatever non-consumable metal/alloy/substance giving a thermionic current on several A at 300K is something I?d like to see proved before moving further. That in itself would have a tremendous impact, being a huge improvement. Unfortunately, at this stage all I can say is that it can not be done according to my experience.
Best regards,
Tinu
-
Hi tinu,
Taking the overall view of your comment I would say that you believe
if it has not been done then it cannot be done.
I would answer, well this whole forum should close down! surely everyone here is hoping that imagination with science is better than conservatism with no imagination.
There is a scientific method but it is far from perfect. We burnt at the stake thinkers of old who suggested their peers were wrong.
You obviously had a good education and i am sure you hold a degree or two but....
what is education for, to play it safe regurgitating what your professor told you.
Or is education about showing people how to think.
Of course you should be sceptical in science, question everything (including waht you have been taught and what you think you know).
Only when you can look at a hypothesis with a mind free of prejudice can you arrive at an impartial judgment.
As to the device, it will work if it is a question of popular vote. I have 5 votes from top flight scientists that it should work, about 10 votes from top flight scientists that say it may or may not work and that building it is the only way. About 100 votes from forum readers who say I want to build my own. About 20 votes from scientists who say it cannot work because of the second law. I have myself that has spent thousands of hours trying to find a flaw. Government officals who say it is so promising that it deserves a panel of experts to judge it. A Billionaire that wanted to own it to make himself even richer and about a handful of people who are posting comments about me including that I am a nutter, I do not exist and that it is a scam thought they are not sure because I am not asking for any money.
Ohh and then Tinu there is you.
A friend and a sceptic.
Well i respect your viewpoint but ask..
If you thought I was right would you tell everyone you knew?
would you tell everyone on this site to get behind me?
All I am doing is trying to do good. If I thought I was wrong or if someone had shown me I was wrong I would not be here. I don?t need all the stress of arguing day after day.
I am doing this like I said before, because Tak22 asked me to and because I believe it is my moral obligation to say what I believe to be true if that belief then leads to a way of helping prevent starvation etc.
So respectfully tinu, I ask you to look again at this thing and also to buy the next nexus magazien where they have given me a 6 page spread.
Also I sent a draft (a few errors in there) of a mag article i wrote, perhaps you can ask him to post the vacuum return diagram as it dispells your belief of the collector heating up....because the collector is the backside of the emitter. I am sure you will appreciate the beauty of it if Kator1 posts it.
Anyhow
To all at overunity
It has been fun
I wish you all well
You are all good guys 8including my friend tinu)
Lets all work together for mankind.
P.S if you believe me then spread the word of the Thermionic revolution.
Tell friends, tv, radio, papers professors and sceptics
We just want a debate and then we want action.
Philip J Hardcastle
The thermionic downunder man
-
If you thought I was right would you tell everyone you knew?
I'd surely do, my friend!
No doubt about it.
(Pls have a look at this thread: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3086.0.html I was probably wrong but it hopefully proves the point)
Cheers,
Tinu
-
Hi All,
I thought it may help if I post a single elecfrode version as it goes a long way to simplify the issues.
(in cross section)
The disc is mechanically connected to a drive shaft. We show on the left-hand side the current flow through the disc, and on the right-hand side the magnetic field intersecting the disc. At the top of the
mechanical shaft is an AC motor/generator connected to mains AC power.
So now, instead of the electrons just colliding with the inner surface and creating heat, we use the emf generated at the outer surface to draw electrons through the disc and thus through the magnetic
field, causing a motor effect (i.e., torque is induced). This conversion of current to torque is established fact in physics.
As the flow of electrons is being choked (i.e., the flow rate is being restricted) by the magnetic field, the electrons at the inner surface are now absorbed at a controlled rate and thus do not cause much (if any) heating. So all the cooling of the disc at the outer surface is being converted to torque.
To get the disc up to a speed where the thermionic work function is sufficiently reduced to make a significant current flow, we spin the disc using a mains synchronous motor/generator.
The disk as stated before needs micromachining however if we had a metal that could stand a tip speed of 10,000m/s it could be smooth.
At 10,000M/s the effective work function is reduced by approx 5ev so for a metal of work function 5.15ev we would be in a nice operating region (thermionic current of amps per cm squared)
At approximately 10,000 m/s (if there were a metal strong enough), we reduce the effective work function of a common metal to 0.15 eV. At 0.15 eV and at room temperature, a large number of electrons will escape into vacuum. Now they end up doing 0.15 eV of work to get to vacuum,
and in vacuum they are mostly exhausted. The work they did to get to vacuum is now available as an electromotive force in the disc to draw electrons past the magnetic intersection and thus convert current times emf into mechanical torque (then to drive the AC generator).
But as said before, the electron at the outside is going faster than on the inside so
we need to deduct, from the 0.15 eV work done, the energy needed to get a replacement electron up to 10,000 m/s.
Using the kinetic energy expression 1/2 mv2, we get 1/2 x 9.109E-31 x 10,000 x
10,000 = 4.55E-23 joules (m = mass; v = velocity; E = exponent base 10).
The work done by the electron in escaping the outer surface is 0.15 eV x 1.602E-19 = 2.4E-20 joules.
So, dividing 2.4E-20 by 4.55E-23 gives 527x. This simply means that the energy used to get the replacement electron up to speed is 527 times less than the work it can do to generate electricity. QED! Overunity
As stated before we will need to make the disc with sharp points for operation at more realistic 316m/s.
Regard to Tak22, Tinu and all.
-
My apologies to all,
It is 5.30am here and when I posted I cut and pasted bits froma draft article.
When I read it now it is a bit mixed up and with some gaps.
Tak22 has more info so he can answer questions.
Goodnight all zzzz
Phil H
-
@all,
What is the reason why the concept is supposed NOT to work?
I ask this question instead of the skeptics question why the concept is supposed to work.
Tell me and I will think again.
Kind regards to all,
Ceres
-
Hello Philip,
you mentioned in your answer to my post :
Now to Kator01,
Hi, I do know of a number of doped tungsten surfaces and some other complex surfaces that even go down to about 0.8ev.
Can you please tell the community what kind of doped tungsten you know which go down to 0.8 eV and give a hint what company is selling this product ?
It might be of importance in another thread.
Thank you
Kator01
-
Hi All,
Just popped in to tell you that we have the Nexus article to read at www.thermionicrevolution.com
We have had some very interesting conversations with people who wish to get more details.
We will be providing as much information as we can in the near future.
If anyone here knows of a news site or newspaper, or newspaper reporter that would give us some publicity to get more debate going we would appreciate it.
We need governments to be embarrassed into action by your making this a hot topic that they cannot ignore.
Thanks to Z.Monkey for his help.
Regards Phil H
-
Hello Philip,
Talking about bearings and high speed revolutions, this is what you might be in need of. High speed bearings: have a look at:
http://www.miti.cc/
Just an idea for development.
Good Luck,
Ceres
-
Hi Ceres,
Looks good.
Will add that to our supplier base folder.
Thanks.
-
....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.....
-
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
-
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...
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Hi,
does anybody know, why this an "sudden death" again?
-
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.
-
strange!!
http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Rotating_Thermionic_Generator
-
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?
-
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
-
Hi Phil,
At least, we are just happy, that you are fine and healthy :)
best,
sushi
-
Hi Sushi,
Nice of you to say so.
Live long and prosper.
Phil H
-
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
-
Hi,
IF MIB, or scary people like that, want me please come after 7a.m as I really need my morning coffee to cope.
Phil H
-
Hi,
IF MIB, or scary people like that, want me please come after 7a.m as I really need my morning coffee to cope.
Phil H
Hi Phil,
its 8 o'clock a.m and my coffee is in front of me. is'nt 7:00 is a bit early-bird?
where can i read something about your stuff while enyoing my cup?
sushi