top

Isothermal Thermionic Converters

Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | Physics Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next   Page 2 of 9

Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:23 pm PostPost subject:
Hardcastle
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 119
Location: Australia

Reply with quote

ddddddd
_________________
Just because something is accepted, it does not necessarily mean that it is right. Think for yourself.


Last edited by Hardcastle on Tue May 26, 2009 8:36 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sat Apr 25, 2009 11:48 pm PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Hi Phil,

Just got done catching up on the thread here. I don't have any basis of the dialog between you and Prof. Germano as I no longer frequent the 'anti'-Steorn forum. Don't take Joshs too seriously, he is still young on his learning curve and is at the adolescent 'I know it all' stage, but in time he will come around - he has a good logical mind and uses it constantly.

I found this patent milling around the internet and thought about your theory. I don't know much regarding Gold Oxide Cesium thermionic emission but I do have some thoughts regarding free electrons and PM'd Tinsel Koala with a test procedure to validate a specific hypothesis. I will share that with you here. In short it addresses the issue of where these free electrons really come from and has parallels to your discussion here.

Consider two systems, one closed and the other open. The closed system is comprised of a magnetic generator, and a thermionic emitter wired in series. When the generator is cranked, the emitter heats up. I chose a CRT gun as the emitter. The CRT serves to function as the gap with the screen (anode) being part of the open system. The open system and the closed system are electrically isolated with the exception of the vacuum gap between them.

Now, it could be argued that the generator wires, connecting wires and the emitter contain a finite quantity of electrons. Therefore, one possibilty is that during testing, even though the emitter is glowing red hot there would be a point at which no more electrons would be available for emission because of total depletion. To ensure that none are passed to the generator by surrounding gases, the test is done in vacuum.

If however, the flow of electrons continues indefinitely, then it must be concluded that the closed system is in fact a zero point extractor removing energy or particles from the vacuum and converting them into electrons to balance the ions left behind from the thermionic emission.

I propose that the latter is the case and that magnetic generators do interface with the Dirac sea and extract energy as needed to keep balance.

I would like to see your PDF.

Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:16 am PostPost subject:
Seldous
Newbie


Joined: 25 Apr 2009
Posts: 1

Reply with quote

Hi Philip you know me as trim on the Steorn website. I have been struggling to get back on this website. But I have managed it with help from Dr Richardson.

Your last post on Steorn was to thank Charlie for his help. I hope something good comes out of it. Very Happy
_________________
Hope for the best prepare for the worst
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:31 am PostPost subject:
Hardcastle
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 119
Location: Australia

Reply with quote

ddddddddddd
_________________
Just because something is accepted, it does not necessarily mean that it is right. Think for yourself.


Last edited by Hardcastle on Tue May 26, 2009 8:37 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:37 am PostPost subject:
Trim
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 07 Oct 2007
Posts: 217
Location: Colchester, Essex

Reply with quote

Yes just about. But I think I might be Trim again very confusing. Mind you it is getting fairly late in Blighty. Josh is actually quite intelligent but why he has to behave like he does is beyond me maybe he has a bad case of phimosis. Twisted Evil
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:38 am PostPost subject:
Hardcastle
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 119
Location: Australia

Reply with quote

Harvey,

I need to consider what you are saying before I could give a fair response.

As to Joshs, it is not his youth but his disregard for all but himself. He is wilfully trying to hurt people, that to my mind is a sick mind.

I argue all the time but do so with good will.

If we all did what Joshs does we would have had WW16 by now.

Give me an hour to respond to your post.

The pdf is not for publication, you can discuss it but do not repost it.

Ping my email.

Phil
_________________
Just because something is accepted, it does not necessarily mean that it is right. Think for yourself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:42 am PostPost subject:
Hardcastle
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 119
Location: Australia

Reply with quote

Seems like most of the people that talk to me are from England. Maybe a name like Hardcastle attracts such.
_________________
Just because something is accepted, it does not necessarily mean that it is right. Think for yourself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sun Apr 26, 2009 1:05 am PostPost subject:
Hardcastle
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 119
Location: Australia

Reply with quote

Harvey,

Sorry but I do not understand how you come to that conclusion, do you have a thread where we could talk about it?

or send me an email if you already have something.

Regards Phil
_________________
Just because something is accepted, it does not necessarily mean that it is right. Think for yourself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sun Apr 26, 2009 5:58 am PostPost subject:
noncents
Newbie


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 3

Reply with quote

Hi Philip,
I'm not from the UK and am no physicist, but I too am also trying to follow along like mistersean2k. I'm curious as to why you're documenting this on the Fizzx forum. I appreciate the step-by-step guide with questions and answers, but isn't there a concise document outlining at least the hypothesis you could link to or upload?
If you've spent so much time and energy pursuing this I can't understand why there isn't a whole presentation available and why instead of creating that document you're spending valuable time typing words into this obscure offshoot of the Steorn forum. I would think a Word or open office Write document would be more appropriate. Maybe some neat charts and Excel stuff would also help.
Don't mind Josh. He is what everyone above has said. Unfortunately,you just can't not mind him and people just want to escape, no one can blame you.
Regards,
Tim
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Apr 26, 2009 7:24 am PostPost subject:
Hardcastle
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 119
Location: Australia

Reply with quote

ddddddddddd
_________________
Just because something is accepted, it does not necessarily mean that it is right. Think for yourself.


Last edited by Hardcastle on Tue May 26, 2009 8:37 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sun Apr 26, 2009 10:54 am PostPost subject:
mrsean2k
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 35

Reply with quote

The significance of the thermionic gap / thermoelectric junction remark still eludes me, but before pursuing your specific theory, I have a couple of background questions:

Trajectory:

All else being equal, what is the trajectory of electrons emitted from a surface with a particular work function?

That is, do they tend to be ejected perpendicular to the surface, do they get ejected randomly at the whole range of angles? is there some sort of bell curve describing the distribution of angles?

Does this depend on the composition of the surface, and if so how (if there even *is* a simple answer to that question)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Apr 26, 2009 11:00 am PostPost subject:
mrsean2k
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 35

Reply with quote

Second question:

Imagine I have a thermionic emitter at one end of a short pipe. To my thinking, this gives me a "gun" that will spray a beam of electrons in roughly the direction I'm pointing it.

Then imagine I have a wheel with a set of vanes mounted horizontally. If I point my thermionic gun at one side of the wheel, am I right in saying that given a suitably intense stream of electrons, and a suitably lightweight and freely rotating wheel, that wheel will being to spin - nothing controversial, just conservation of momentum?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Apr 26, 2009 11:03 am PostPost subject:
Hardcastle
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 119
Location: Australia

Reply with quote

ddddddddd
_________________
Just because something is accepted, it does not necessarily mean that it is right. Think for yourself.


Last edited by Hardcastle on Tue May 26, 2009 8:38 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sun Apr 26, 2009 11:05 am PostPost subject:
Hardcastle
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 119
Location: Australia

Reply with quote

dddddddd
_________________
Just because something is accepted, it does not necessarily mean that it is right. Think for yourself.


Last edited by Hardcastle on Tue May 26, 2009 8:39 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sun Apr 26, 2009 11:08 am PostPost subject:
Hardcastle
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 119
Location: Australia

Reply with quote

dddddddddd
_________________
Just because something is accepted, it does not necessarily mean that it is right. Think for yourself.


Last edited by Hardcastle on Tue May 26, 2009 8:39 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sun Apr 26, 2009 11:09 am PostPost subject:
Hardcastle
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 119
Location: Australia

Reply with quote

If of course a surface was say v grooved then emissions would be near impossible perp to the macro surface
_________________
Just because something is accepted, it does not necessarily mean that it is right. Think for yourself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sun Apr 26, 2009 11:32 am PostPost subject:
mrsean2k
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 35

Reply with quote

Hardcastle wrote:
to the second question

That is correct and it goes to the Curled Ballistic device already disclosed.


It was the Curled Ballistic device I had in mind. What I was trying to work out is whether the emission and absorption of the electron actually happens, on average, perpendicular to the surface of the inner and outer rings, and the magnetic field only influences the path taken between those two events.

So if I was emitted perpendicular to the outer ring, and collected perpendicular to the inner ring, there would be no net torque?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Apr 26, 2009 11:37 am PostPost subject:
Hardcastle
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 119
Location: Australia

Reply with quote

dddddddd
_________________
Just because something is accepted, it does not necessarily mean that it is right. Think for yourself.


Last edited by Hardcastle on Tue May 26, 2009 8:40 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sun Apr 26, 2009 1:57 pm PostPost subject:
Trim
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 07 Oct 2007
Posts: 217
Location: Colchester, Essex

Reply with quote

Even silly ideas have some merit they might give you some unexpected insight to a totally different problem.
_________________
Assume all assumptions are wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Apr 26, 2009 4:05 pm PostPost subject:
Hardcastle
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 119
Location: Australia

Reply with quote

dddddddd
_________________
Just because something is accepted, it does not necessarily mean that it is right. Think for yourself.


Last edited by Hardcastle on Tue May 26, 2009 8:40 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sun Apr 26, 2009 4:10 pm PostPost subject:
mrsean2k
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 35

Reply with quote

Hardcastle wrote:
Correct,

That is the net average situation in the absence of a magnetic field.

I really thought the whole world would go "YES"

but not so, the World seems to want to not see such.

One professor said to me "I wish I had come up with that"

Professor Fu said, "the idea is correct, such ideas are rare"


So in the presence of a suitable magnetic field, you'd expect:

1) Electrons are emitted at a variety of angles from the outer emitting surface. The range of angles varies according to the work function / temperature, with a bias towards perpendicular.

2) As soon as the electron has exited the surface, it is influenced by the magnetic field. So that for an instant they are on a straight trajectory, but are immediately dragged off along a curved path.

3) When an electron hits the collector, it imparts KE. Because it's colliding at an angle biased in a particular direction, this imparts a net (although small) torque.

For this setup, what happens to the electron? Is it absorbed by the collector (as I may have misleadingly labelled it), or does it recoil from the surface, or some statistically dependent combination of the two events?

It seems to me that if the electron is absorbed, there would be a net torque. But if it recoils elastically, this just produces a radial force on the inner circle?

We aren't considering current flow here at all, are we? It's a question of using the momentum of each electron to product a torque on the inner surface, with the promise of dynamoesque behaviour from this movement somewhere down the line?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Apr 26, 2009 4:14 pm PostPost subject:
mrsean2k
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 35

Reply with quote

Trim wrote:
Even silly ideas have some merit they might give you some unexpected insight to a totally different problem.


Couldn't agree more. It's not enough to say that an idea is silly, you need to explore the reasons *why* it's silly. And falling back on "it's leads to the wrong conclusion and so must be silly" isn't useful for speculation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Apr 26, 2009 4:16 pm PostPost subject:
Hardcastle
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 119
Location: Australia

Reply with quote

ddddddd
_________________
Just because something is accepted, it does not necessarily mean that it is right. Think for yourself.


Last edited by Hardcastle on Tue May 26, 2009 8:41 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sun Apr 26, 2009 4:19 pm PostPost subject:
Hardcastle
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 119
Location: Australia

Reply with quote

dddddd
_________________
Just because something is accepted, it does not necessarily mean that it is right. Think for yourself.


Last edited by Hardcastle on Tue May 26, 2009 8:41 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sun Apr 26, 2009 4:26 pm PostPost subject:
Hardcastle
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 119
Location: Australia

Reply with quote

dddddd
_________________
Just because something is accepted, it does not necessarily mean that it is right. Think for yourself.


Last edited by Hardcastle on Tue May 26, 2009 8:42 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sun Apr 26, 2009 7:04 pm PostPost subject:
Trim
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 07 Oct 2007
Posts: 217
Location: Colchester, Essex

Reply with quote

Oh well Sleep tight and have nice productive dreams. And thanks for sending me the file again that was the first time I heard of your negative bias which I think is a good idea.

(using "your negative bias" as a compliment, that's a first Wink )
_________________
Assume all assumptions are wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:43 pm PostPost subject: Re: Isothermal Thermionic Converters
mrsean2k
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 35

Reply with quote

Hardcastle wrote:
A new thermionic theory by Philip Hardcastle dealing with thermionic converters having no exhaust and near perfect efficiency.


Phil, just noticed, I think your signature is missing a word that significantly alters it's meaning - best check.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:07 pm PostPost subject:
Trim
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 07 Oct 2007
Posts: 217
Location: Colchester, Essex

Reply with quote

Just because something is accepted, it does necessarily mean that it is right. Think for yourself.

Seems alright to me.

Phil I prefer your non moving device with the negative bias less things to go wrong.

If I have a criticism it is about your generosity of having everything open sourced that will not in my opinion be the fastest way to get your devices to the world having a bidding war between Intel and AMD for sole rights to your chip cooling power device could earn you some development money and publicity as well as not hurting the world.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:37 pm PostPost subject:
mrsean2k
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 35

Reply with quote

Trim wrote:
Just because something is accepted, it does necessarily mean that it is right. Think for yourself.

Seems alright to me.

Phil I prefer your non moving device with the negative bias less things to go wrong.

If I have a criticism it is about your generosity of having everything open sourced that will not in my opinion be the fastest way to get your devices to the world having a bidding war between Intel and AMD for sole rights to your chip cooling power device could earn you some development money and publicity as well as not hurting the world.


If it seems right, you should read it again, until it seems wrong Smile

Not trying to be a pain, but it shows how easy it is to mislead yourself even when you're on your guard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Apr 26, 2009 10:49 pm PostPost subject:
Hardcastle
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 119
Location: Australia

Reply with quote

not
_________________
Just because something is accepted, it does not necessarily mean that it is right. Think for yourself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | Physics
View previous topic
View next topic
Display posts from previous:   




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum