The £10 Valve Experiment

I have been asked (hi Mr S) to give some more detail to the original Philips E180F experiment that was carried out.

The output of current doubled when we paralleled 2 devices, the voltage double when we series connected.

The output increased exponentially in keeping with thermionic emission laws however there was a deviation from the simplistic Richardson equation.

All leads were shielded.

Experiments were repeated dozens of times in all, all results were in agreement with each other and with the underlying theory.

The experiment was designed intrinsically to have a very tight delta T and measurments by differential thermocouple means guaranteed that a delta T across the device was less than 0.1K. This is actually quite easy to achieve when you use the right combinations of thermal insulators and conductors, in fact by using polished inner metal device holders I calculate that we could even repeat this with mK control. However it is worth noting that no variance of output was observed even when deliberate delta T forcing was introduced that was greater than the required experimental stability.

A mechanical moving coil micro-ammeter was used once the current became significant, initially at starting pA levels through to 100nA a Keithley picometer was used.

The current was almost identical between devices (less than 10% variance)

Open circuit voltage reached a maximum of 875mV just before the device imploded.

For the used valve the maximum current obtained was a little under 10uA when done under vacuum.

The experiment repeated at an independent lab using a different pentode obtained 10uA.

All issues of orientation such as Earth magnetic field were tested for influence (none detected)

I admit I did not test for radiation but my calculation show such could not even account for more than a few pA.

I did not scan for RF using a scope but I did use a capacitor across the load to test for variance, none detectable.

I note that there is no known device that can produce the output voltage from any thermocouple action and in any case all steps were taken to eliminate dissimilar metals junctions at different temperatures.

I have no doubt at all that this experiment can be repeated by anyone and that is why I was happy to offer 25K to any lab that did the experiment but did not get the same results as I did.

That is all I care to say on this, I find the resistance of people to do the experiment an indictment to the arrogance and apathy of the World at present. People would rather we spend billions on exotic research than suggest $10 on a Philip E180F experiment, they would rather attack me at length and call me names rather than do a garage test. The issues of climate change are here for everyone, it is a shame that the sceptics only know how to call researchers that challenge the 2nd Law (in any way) names and profess their own claimed superior knowledge. Has mankind given up all ability to think independently of the status quo, to me it seems history repeats itself and man has learned nothing, every person that challenges the status quo with a claimed big jump is treated with venom by those most able to act wisely.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to The £10 Valve Experiment

  1. Simon Derricutt says:

    I am one of the many who have not done this experiment. I have not got sensitive enough metering to get a good result, and in any case I expect it to work. The argument about Maxwell’s Daemon running out of paper always struck me as silly – more saying “don’t argue with The Law” rather than a real reason. 2LoT is in any case a statistical law – it depends upon having a large number of particles to work. If you get down to the scale of dealing with individual particles then it simply doesn’t apply, and you instead need to deal with Newton’s laws of motion or the relativistic equivalent if it’s necessary, or as in this case apply quantum theory.

    I understand the difficulties of manufacture of the Quenco, so I’m not expecting the first batches to meet Philip’s initial hopes. Something that delivers 1% of the theoretical, however, is still well worth having.

    Around a dozen years ago my company asked us to put forward patent ideas, and our group was tasked with producing two. One was for a paper sensor, which did get granted in 2003, but we couldn’t find another so I put forward a similar idea using gas molecules – a perpetual motion machine that converted the heat from the air into available (though very low power) energy. That one was never accepted, but it is still valid as a way round 2LoT. It’s a bit difficult to make in the back shed (I tried a few times) but with a MEMS lab or a fab it could still be made someday if I get the money to burn. By that time, though, Philip will have already shown 2LoT is an approximation, so not really any point in doing it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s