top

Isothermal Thermionic Converters

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

Sat Apr 25, 2009 1:49 am PostPost subject: Isothermal Thermionic Converters
Hardcastle
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 119
Location: Australia

Reply with quote

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


Last edited by Hardcastle on Sat May 16, 2009 10:04 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:17 am 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 Sat May 16, 2009 10:05 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:26 am 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 Sat May 16, 2009 10:06 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:34 am 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 Sat May 16, 2009 10:06 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sat Apr 25, 2009 7:26 am PostPost subject:
Hardcastle
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 119
Location: Australia

Reply with quote

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


Last edited by Hardcastle on Sat May 16, 2009 10:07 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sat Apr 25, 2009 10:47 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Interesting. Many of the parts of your Thermionic Theory are embedded in the working functions of an everyday CRT. I do not recall any thermal studies surrounding their operation. I wonder if a CRT could be reworked to test your theories?

Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat Apr 25, 2009 11:41 am 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.


Hi Phil,

I don't want to derail your flow, and I believe I'm following the argument (with dips into Google where required).

Are you looking for feedback at a certain point when you've laid out your case "in full" as it were. or as you go? I don't personally have anything that couldn't wait, and it's more checking my understanding as opposed to contesting a point.

Sean
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat Apr 25, 2009 11:46 am 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 Sat May 16, 2009 10:08 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:01 pm PostPost subject:
Hardcastle
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 119
Location: Australia

Reply with quote

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


Last edited by Hardcastle on Sat May 16, 2009 10:08 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:09 pm PostPost subject:
mrsean2k
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 35

Reply with quote

Hardcastle wrote:
Hi Sean,

Please chip in as you feel it to be appropriate.

I need to have Q&A so that I know what is making sense to others.

The story is quite long so interludes are welcome.

This is why Joshs was never going to be a worthy debate because he would not listen to a hundred pages.

So, fire away!


As I say, it's a check of understanding as much as anything.

So (baby steps):

1) The work function of a material is the energy needed to free one electron from the surface of that material:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_function

2) Heating a material makes electrons more energetic and therefore more likely to emit an electron from the surface into "free space" as as it were. This looks to be the basis for much of the work / application of thermionics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermionics

3) Emitting an electron in this way typically leaves a positive charge in the surface / in the material.

4) This positive charge will attract a free electron from "somewhere" in the environment to end up with no net change in charge.

5) Electrons may still be emitted without additional input energy - at what we might consider ambient temperature - but these would be considered rare events. Rare but not totally absent.

6) Two surfaces with a different work function will emit at very low but nevertheless different rates at the same ambient temperature.


So if I understand your claims so far correcty:

1) You arrange for two plates composed of material with different work functions to face one another.

2) The same plates are connected by a wire.

3) The work function of the plates means that statistically more electrons are emitted from one plate and potentially absorbed by the other

4) The "internal" redistribution of electrons gives a net current flow in the wire connecting the two.

5) The magnitude of this theoretical flow is dependent on the composition of the plates and their relative work functions and the distance between the plates.

6) With existing experiments, you believe that statistically there should be a current, but in practice it is at such low levels that demonstrating this experimentally is not possible.

7) You seek to remedy that by commissioning materials / equipment specifically designed to magnify any effect.


All of which in effect says you should be able to harvest ambient heat for usable electrical energy, and this is the contentious 2LOT busting claim.

Have I understood correctly, and if not where do I need to look to solve that problem?

As a general note, I'm not interested in falsification at the moment, just making sure I understand the nature of the claim.

Ta

Sean

[ETA: correct typing and indavertent "current" pun]


Last edited by mrsean2k on Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:11 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 Sat May 16, 2009 10:09 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:14 pm PostPost subject:
Hardcastle
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 119
Location: Australia

Reply with quote

you were doing good until item 7
_________________
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
 
Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:15 pm PostPost subject:
Hardcastle
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 119
Location: Australia

Reply with quote

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


Last edited by Hardcastle on Sat May 16, 2009 10:16 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:18 pm PostPost subject:
Hardcastle
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 119
Location: Australia

Reply with quote

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


Last edited by Hardcastle on Sat May 16, 2009 10:09 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:21 pm PostPost subject:
mrsean2k
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 35

Reply with quote

Hardcastle wrote:
Many physicists get lost at this point.

They describe simple experiments they claim will violate the 2ndlot but then they fail.


Gah, not being a physicist, I might have escaped that trap, but it was not to be.

So for the time being, do I just accept that whatever you *do* propose to demonstrate this effect is different from the simple model you discuss here, and you'll get to that in due course?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:22 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 Sat May 16, 2009 10:10 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:25 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 Sat May 16, 2009 10:11 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:27 pm PostPost subject:
Hardcastle
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 119
Location: Australia

Reply with quote

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


Last edited by Hardcastle on Sat May 16, 2009 10:17 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:30 pm PostPost subject:
Hardcastle
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 119
Location: Australia

Reply with quote

Sean, not as lot of people come here, it is like a ghost town.
_________________
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
 
Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:34 pm PostPost subject:
mrsean2k
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 35

Reply with quote

Hardcastle wrote:
So said I said to him that a thermionic gap must be equivalent to a thermoelectric junction. That as the gap gets smaller it tends to a junction at the limit.

This means that we redraw the low work function as though it is sandwiched between high work function material. Such an arrangement clearly would create equal charge if the plates were not connected externally and if a meter was put across no flow of current would occur.

Do you follow?


Partly. As the gap gets smaller, I can see the equivalence to a junction:

A...B
A..B
A.B
AB

but as I read it, the setup I'm asked to consider is:

BAB...B
BAB..B
BAB.B
BABB

which is just

BAB

I don't understand why this is significant (if I read you correctly).

Also your last sentence:

"Such an arrangement clearly would create equal charge if the plates were not connected externally and if a meter was put across no flow of current would occur"

do you mean that it would create equal charge *despite* the fact the plates are not connected externally, i.e. no additional link is required?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:35 pm PostPost subject:
Hardcastle
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 119
Location: Australia

Reply with quote

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


Last edited by Hardcastle on Sat May 16, 2009 10:11 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:37 pm PostPost subject:
Hardcastle
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 119
Location: Australia

Reply with quote

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


Last edited by Hardcastle on Sat May 16, 2009 10:15 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:40 pm PostPost subject:
mrsean2k
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 35

Reply with quote

Hardcastle wrote:
Sean, not as lot of people come here, it is like a ghost town.


LOL, well it's the most time I've spent on here. It might be worth bearing in mind that it's midday on Saturday, so you could expect it to be a bit quiet, but I have no idea if you'll have enough contributors to make it worth your while.

You could look on it as marshalling your thoughts before diving back into the bearpit I suppose.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:41 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 Sat May 16, 2009 10:12 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:43 pm PostPost subject:
mrsean2k
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 35

Reply with quote

Hardcastle wrote:
Correct it would create equal charge unconnected externally.


Ok, got you there - random movement between the materials will average out, so no net flow. Still don't get the signficance, but I'll wait and read.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:46 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 Sat May 16, 2009 10:13 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:51 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 Sat May 16, 2009 10:13 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:59 pm PostPost subject:
Hardcastle
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 119
Location: Australia

Reply with quote

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


Last edited by Hardcastle on Sat May 16, 2009 10:14 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sat Apr 25, 2009 1:25 pm PostPost subject:
Hardcastle
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 119
Location: Australia

Reply with quote

Echo echo echo echo

no one hear to spoil the acoustics.

ohce ohce ohce ohce

now that was unexpected!
_________________
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
 
Sat Apr 25, 2009 1:49 pm PostPost subject:
mrsean2k
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 35

Reply with quote

Hardcastle wrote:
Echo echo echo echo

no one hear to spoil the acoustics.

ohce ohce ohce ohce

now that was unexpected!


Sorry, intervening support for Mrs Sean2k's website and a spot of lunch. Email sent.

I'll also go and look at previous posts you refer to. I appreciate you leading me through it, but don't pause with or interrupt your narrative on my account - I'll bleat about not understanding as I get there down the line.

Personally I find it useful to be lead by the nose point-to-point to get a 10,000 foot view and then ask where it seems appropriate.

To refer back to one of your other points, yes I would also have found it logical that there was an accumulation of charge on one plate and scratched my head at finding none.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
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