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

    • CommentAuthorAtom
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010 edited
     
    [quote][cite]Posted By: Trim[/cite]If you really want to know about electrons being emitted and absorbed by different materials you ought to join the other forum if you haven't already and if you ask very nicely I am sure my mate Philip Hardcastle one of the worlds foremost experts on the subject will help you but be sure to ask him nicely or you will get very sort shift.[/quote]

    I tried but I was rejected.

    Anyhow I am not saying I agree with anyone, just that a Professor's paper deserves more than a 2 minute assassination by a moron called joshs.

    Or maybe that is all it is worth, who knows?
  1.  
    izzat you Phil?
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010
     
    Posted By: AtomWell done joshs, you promptly showed that you are a moron.
    And you have demonstrated this by refuting what position of mine? JAQ'ing off is not a counter argument.
    • CommentAuthorAtom
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010
     
    [quote][cite]Posted By: joshs[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: Atom[/cite]Well done joshs, you promptly showed that you are a moron.[/quote]And you have demonstrated this by refuting what position of mine? JAQ'ing off is not a counter argument.[/quote]

    Joshs you have no coherent or scientific position, but you have your head up your arse, and that is a position you do so well.
    •  
      CommentAuthorQuanten
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010
     
    Firstly as we went over this with PL (and possibly PJH) second law applies only for macroscopic system (if I recall correctly the limit being somewhere around an isolated system of a billion atom, above the 2nd law being verified to many significant digits, the reason being obvious why this so for a statistical empirical law). What PJH propose are definitively not capturing system of less a few billion atom, so here is your flaw.

    Now onto d'abrammo or whatever ihis name. Arxiv is only pre-print IIRC or never-print. Can't remember which. SO as far as I can tell it ain't been peer reviewed, so don't take anything in arxiv as "gold". But beside that, as with all highly theoretical calculation, like the one by puthoff on ZPE energy generation from adabiatic cycle using casimir effect, I will say : good to you. Now FALSIFY IT with experiment. Until then it ain't even a theory, it is at best only an hypothese, an idea.

    Finaly about electron capture and work function: Atom you can't compare electron capture with a kinetic energy with electron liberated by a process with the exact energy of the work function. For one the work function is if I recall correctly only up to the point the electron is liberated (aka considered outside the material) and has no kinetic energy, any excess energy is given by the process (temperature or photon) which has an energy above the work function. You have to compare apple to apple. For conductor I darkly remember capture or emission has the same energy (kinetic energy only change possible cross section probability of capture). But I could be wrong, and I will plainly admit I have no desire to check it, so feel free to correct me.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010 edited
     
    Atom I'm still waiting for you to offer a science based counter argument to my position. If you ever do then we will have something to discuss.
    • CommentAuthorAtom
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010 edited
     
    @Quanten, thanks for the comment.

    Not necessary for me to reply to your first 2 paragraphs as I agree proof is the only valid test and I do not see Germano suggesting that is going to happen any time soon.

    As to the third paragraph I agree re emission is not the same as capture except insofar as the kinetic energy induced in an electron captured by a positive charged (and therefore receptive) anode is going to be a conversion of an electrical potential energy into a kinetic (heat) as a result of the collision (plus the initial velocity of the electron prior to being influenced by the field), in any case such is already well documented in diagrams showing vacuum energy levels and electrode energy levels etc. In the case of a neutral or negative charge to the anode then the energy converted to heat is more complex. clearly an electron boring in to a metal surface must displace some electrons.

    I guess this leads to x-ray targets and such.

    What I was asking for was a view as to what specifically was wrong (if there is) with Germano's paper.

    To me joshs statement was not valid and I cannot see that has changed.

    What is your view?
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010
     
    Posted By: QuantenFirstly as we went over this with PL (and possibly PJH) second law applies only for macroscopic system (if I recall correctly the limit being somewhere around an isolated system of a billion atom, above the 2nd law being verified to many significant digits, the reason being obvious why this so for a statistical empirical law). What PJH propose are definitively not capturing system of less a few billion atom, so here is your flaw
    ...

    For conductor I darkly remember capture or emission has the same energy (kinetic energy only change possible cross section probability of capture). But I could be wrong, and I will plainly admit I have no desire to check it, so feel free to correct me.
    Yes, it was discussed at length back on the old forum. The whackado concept is that a work function that is low enough at a particular temperature to result in electrons escaping the solid means that they spin-off into space. A certain number will if and only if the surrounding space is at a lower temperature than the solid. Miracle of miracles emission removes heat, and reduces temperature of the solid. At constant temperature the equilibrium condition gives rise to a static charge distribution. Absent an accelerating voltage, or temperature gradient, the work function of the material and the temperature determine the average distribution of charge in the vicinity of the solid's surface. It does not give rise to a static current away from the solid's surface.
    • CommentAuthorAtom
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010
     
    [quote][cite]Posted By: joshs[/cite]Atom I'm still waiting for you to offer a science based counter argument to my position. If you ever do then we will have something to discuss.[/quote]

    To be fair joshs I asked you to clarify what you were saying and you declined to so therefore it is a tad hard to argue the point.
    •  
      CommentAuthorQuanten
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010
     
    I would have to check (which I don#t want to: this is work and I have enough of that during the week), but this is not the first time such a scheme is proposed, ever since cathode emitting electron have been found and used as component for electronic device.
    • CommentAuthorAtom
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010
     
    Surrounding space is at a lower temperature than the solid?

    That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
    • CommentAuthorAtom
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010
     
    [quote][cite]Posted By: Quanten[/cite]I would have to check (which I don#t want to: this is work and I have enough of that during the week), but this is not the first time such a scheme is proposed, ever since cathode emitting electron have been found and used as component for electronic device.[/quote]

    Fair enough, but thanks for your reply.
    • CommentAuthorAtom
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010 edited
     
    Does anyone here know for sure if there is an error in Germanos paper and has time and the inclination to explain it?

    I suspect the flaw (if there is one) is going to be highly mathematical in nature so some notations would help.

    Does BBCode have any maths packs?
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010
     
    Posted By: overconfidentizzat you Phil?
    It would seem so.
    •  
      CommentAuthorQuanten
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010
     
    Posted By: AtomSurrounding space is at a lower temperature than the solid?

    That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.


    Selective quoting. You forgot the IF.
    • CommentAuthorAtom
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010
     
    @joshs, what is the temperature of your vacuum? A balmy 90F or a wintry -10F?
    • CommentAuthorAtom
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010
     
    [quote][cite]Posted By: Quanten[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: Atom[/cite]Surrounding space is at a lower temperature than the solid?

    That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.[/quote]

    Selective quoting. You forgot the IF.[/quote]

    Does the "If" make it make more sense?
    • CommentAuthorAtom
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2010
     
    OK I see that Germano's paper is not going to be good for an all night party so I will drop it.

    So what about Steorn eh?

    What a whackadoo company they are.
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeMar 24th 2017
     
    Bump
    • CommentAuthorLakes
    • CommentTimeMar 25th 2017
     
    Why?