Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    • CommentAuthorAtom
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2010 edited
     
    I so much liked joshs expression "ice cubes and steam from a magical box dipped in the ocean" in criticising advocates of violating the 2LoT that it deserves to be the the headline.

    I am posting this here because I want Prof Germano D'Abramo to be able to see comments made by such gurus as joshs and Al, no offense meant to either.

    The topic seems to me worthy of discussion whereas Steorn is a waste of time.

    I am uncertain as to Prof Germano's work and I would like to see some opinions. I feel sure Germano is at least competent and honest. If he is right then we are on the wrong tack calling advocates of Demons fools.

    Power from ambient paper of Professor Germano

    [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.4818[/url]

    He is a professor of physics from a reputable University who has won international prizes for mathematics, physics and astronomy. He even has a comet or some such thing named after him.
    • CommentAuthorAtom
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2010
     
    Here is the intro paragraph of his paper.

    Recently (arXiv:0904.3188) the concept of vacuum capacitors spontaneously charged thanks to the heat absorbed from single thermal source at room temperature has been introduced, along with a detailed mathematical description of the functioning and a discussion on its main paradoxical feature that seems to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In the present paper we investigate the theoretical and practical possibility of exploiting such thermo-charged capacitors as voltage/current generators: we show that if very weak provisos on the physical characteristics of the capacitors are fulfilled, then a measurable current should flow across the device, allowing the generation of potentially usable voltage, current and electric power out of a single thermal source at room temperature.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010
     
    The fundamental flaw in his reasoning can be seen on page 3. He makes the mistake of believing that two materials with different work functions separated by a vacuum will exhibit a sustained current. They do not because the work function goes both ways. Easy to emit, means easy to absorb and vice-versa.
    • CommentAuthorAtom
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010 edited
     
    [quote][cite]Posted By: joshs[/cite]The fundamental flaw in his reasoning can be seen on page 3. He makes the mistake of believing that two materials with different work functions separated by a vacuum will exhibit a sustained current. They do not because the work function goes both ways. Easy to emit, means easy to absorb and vice-versa.[/quote]

    Can you please explain your reasoning or link to an article re easy and hard absorption.

    Are you saying that high work function materials like pure copper do not absorb electrons easily?
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010
     
    Google has 752,000 references for "work function". Have a good time.
    • CommentAuthorAtom
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010
     
    [quote][cite]Posted By: joshs[/cite]Google has 752,000 references for "work function". Have a good time.[/quote]

    Hang on there, I asked a question that deserves a simple answer. If you cannot answer it then why say the prof is wrong?
    • CommentAuthorAtom
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010
     
    Articles on work function talk about the forces that an electron must overcome to escape a metal surface. I do not see in the article of wiki an explanation of capture.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010
     
    Posted By: Atom
    Posted By: joshsGoogle has 752,000 references for "work function". Have a good time.


    Hang on there, I asked a question that deserves a simple answer. If you cannot answer it then why say the prof is wrong?
    I've already told you why he is wrong and explained this shit at length to the whackado PJH back on the Steorn forum. If you wish to argue against my position, go collect collateral and present YOUR argument for why you believe I am wrong. I don't feel like being JAQ'd off.
    • CommentAuthorAtom
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010
     
    Well you seem to jerk off a lot on this forum. At least others who disagree with PJH, Frank or whoever are prepared to back up their views. It seems that you are lying when you say you debate the subject, all I did was ask one question and you went ape shit!
    • CommentAuthorAtom
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010
     
    I hope we have some more intelligent posts after joshs capitulation on what should be a worthy subject.

    I personally cannot imagine that joshs, with no qualification in physics, can be believed when he says a recognised physicist of renown is wrong on page 3, then goes ballistic if asked to explain.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010
     
    Posted By: AtomWell you seem to jerk off a lot on this forum. At least others who disagree with PJH, Frank or whoever are prepared to back up their views. It seems that you are lying when you say you debate the subject, all I did was ask one question and you went ape shit!
    I explained my position at length to the whackado PJH who like you just wanted to JAQ me off, and who like you had no science counter argument. If you think that dissimilar work functions create a magical passive refrigerator, instead of form an energy band gap, go find references to support your idea.
    • CommentAuthorAtom
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010 edited
     
    I asked you to justify your comment shooting down a respected physicist.

    your answer says more about your lack of science than Professor Germano's.

    Science is about robust debate and testing theories, you just like to attack people and pretend you know something.

    Joshs I am going to do something I have never done on a forum, I am going to call you the biggest moron of them all.

    You are a lame brained mouth, how dare you call a professor a whackadoo, or for that matter anyone unless you have some solid proof that what they say is wrong. Everyone else on this forum backs up what they say but you just call nice harmless guys like trim an idiot.

    Call me one too if you want but you know that I can take you on, I also think HPJ could and others.

    Who knows who is right and wrong but all I know is that you are not prepared to defend your positions with science.

    Me, I think HPJ is probably wrong and as a safe bet that Prof Germano will find out he is wrong, but I do not know for sure so I will not call anyone a moron (you now excepted).
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010
     
    Posted By: AtomI asked you to justify your comment shooting down a respected physicist.

    your answer says more about your lack of science than Professor Germano's.
    I answered you why Germano is wrong. You have no science based counter. Your only counter, as with the whackado PJH has been a combination of insults and JAQ'ing me off. If you want the long version of the answers to the same questions go look them up in the Steorn threads.


    Science is about robust debate and testing theories, you just like to attack people and pretend you know something.
    And your science based position disputing mine is where Mr. Kettle?


    Joshs I am going to do something I have never done on a forum, I am going to call you the biggest moron of them all.
    Good for you.


    You are a lame brained mouth, how dare you call a professor a whackadoo,
    PJH and Frank are both whackadoos who promote the worst kind of garbage pseudoscience.
    or for that matter anyone unless you have some solid proof that what they say is wrong.
    Neither PJH nor Frank have even remotely begun to show that there is any merit at all to their claims which run against hundreds of years of well researched and tested science. Ergo, they are presumed wrong. If you don't understand that then you are ignorant as to how we learn about the world around us.
    Everyone else on this forum backs up what they say but you just call nice harmless guys like trim an idiot.

    Call me one too if you want but you know that I can take you on,
    Then do it with actual science.
    I also think HPJ could and others.

    Who knows who is right and wrong but all I know is that you are not prepared to defend your positions with science.
    Funny, it's you who refuse to counter my position with any science. I am under no obligation to play your JAQ off games.


    Me, I think HPJ is probably wrong and as a safe bet that Prof Germano will find out he is wrong, but I do not know for sure so I will not call anyone a moron.
    Even though you just did. What does that make you aside from a hypocrite?
    • CommentAuthornova
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010
     
    Posted By: AtomI hope we have some more intelligent posts after joshs capitulation on what should be a worthy subject.

    I personally cannot imagine that joshs, with no qualification in physics, can be believed when he says a recognised physicist of renown is wrong on page 3, then goes ballistic if asked to explain.

    Fuck you atom. You want an easy explanation and when there isn't one you eat shit. Josh owes you no explanation of the physics. Put some effort and learn.
    • CommentAuthorAtom
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010
     
    X times you could have given an answer to my one line question!

    Instead you post and post your lame brained excuses in place of proper scientific debate.

    simply you have lots and lots of low level opinions. Al on the other hand is prepared to go in deep and serious.

    Angus, Quantan, Genesis and others are prepared to be direct, but you, you slither and avoid like the low life you really are.

    Your opinion to me is now proved worthless and I wont bother commenting on the rubbish you post, I look forward to the intelligent comments of Al and others.
    • CommentAuthorAtom
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010 edited
     
    @Nova

    Why do you defend that fool? Surely you are better than him?
  1.  
    There really is no easy explanation. It takes years to understand what all this is about.
  2.  
    Atom you have baited, and a sucker responded. It may not have started that way but that is were it went.

    Joshs did give you the area, were to him exists a problem and stated why. You asked for more and he was not inclined to do so.. So here we are again with a messed up thread..

    Most can see this if they have been around boards for any time.

    Don"t expect such to go easy. I might disagree with joshs, yet I do read what he says with good reason.
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010
     
    Why argue in a few short months we should know whether 2LOT is applicable to sub atomic particles a 100% of the time.
    •  
      CommentAuthorsaner
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010 edited
     
    Posted By: TrimWhy argue in a few short months we shouldknowwhether 2LOT is applicable to sub atomic particles a 100% of the time.


    Or a few short years. Or a few short decades. Or a few short centuries........or never.

    Just like ORBO, debate and conjecture will not conclude this. Scientific hypothesis and experiment may.