 |
There are currently, 797 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
Rotating Thermionic Generator
Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 @ 23:04:17 UTC by vlad
|
|
hardcastle writes: There is a fairly detailed downloadable description of the physics behind this ambient heat to electricity generation device. Courtesy of Nexus.
There has been a large and growing interest in this device and to date overwhelming agreement that the device is viable.
Prototype construction and testing remains the obvious goal and obstacle.
We are looking for government and university support.
New information is now available at www.thermionicrevolution.com.
hardcastle
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Rotating Thermionic Generator (Score: 1)
by ElectroDynaCat on Thursday, July 31, 2008 @ 14:29:20 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | I am unable to pinpoint exactly the principles involved that are supposed to make this device function as claimed. There are no materials that have a .35 ev work function, that alone would be spectacular, as one could create a solar cell that could work on heat instead of light.
They only have enough faith in their idea to ask people for money to build a prototype.
Sorry folks, if you don't believe enough in your idea to put your own money into it, don't expect anyone else to do the same.
|
Re: Rotating Thermionic Generator (Score: 1)
by hardcastle on Thursday, July 31, 2008 @ 17:32:50 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | If someone does not understand then they cannot make a valid comment.
I have put years and money into this.
I now ask for assistance, but then get comments like yours EDCat.
If you read the material you would see that the work function is effectively reduced by extreme centrifugal force. The starting material is non magnetic stainless or some suitable alloy, so it has a static work function in the area of 5ev.
If you weren´t so full of yourself you would then think about electrons at a metal surface being flung by 1,000,000G and of the cumulative push on those outer electrons from all the other electrons being pushed outward.
What I raise here is proved 90 years ago. So perhaps you might educate yourself about science before you start a banal personal attack on me.
Phil H
No professor I have spoken to has a problem with the physics, sorry you do.
I ask the good folks here to consider the science and discuss it with an open mind, not with prejudice and malice.
|
]
Re: Rotating Thermionic Generator (Score: 1)
by ElectroDynaCat on Friday, August 01, 2008 @ 11:49:47 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | I have put years and money into researching viable energy sources. Somewhere out there is a crackpot idea that actually works. The people that monitor this site have seen hundreds of ideas that don't work and they all have one thing in common, they all ask for money, usually a lot of money, which usually disappears rapidly.
A prototype is usually proof of principle, its the minimum act of faith that any potential investor would ask from a developer. Thats the hard facts of business and risk management.
There's a large assortment of perpetual motion machine ideas cataloged on the Internet on various sites that don't work.
Don't feel bad I have poo-pooed your idea, so far amoung the thousands of devices I have researched, there are few that would be worth investing .
|
]
Re: Rotating Thermionic Generator (Score: 1)
by TechsArcana on Saturday, August 16, 2008 @ 11:20:56 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | Dear Hardcastle,
I do understand your physics reasoning: you are suggesting that electrons should act like little ball bearings (particle like behavior) and that a rotation should throw them to the outside, thereby decreasing the work function.
I am not saying that this is, or is not, true. I truly don't know.
I am saying that I can't find any reference to a formula that will allow us to calculate the decrease in work function given some rotation rate. Perhaps you could post one?
I am saying that I can't find any reference to rotationally-induced lowering of work function (or any means of temporarily lowering the work function of a material - aside from photovoltaic effect, but that's just solar energy, not exactly what you are describing.) Perhaps you could post such a link?
The wikipedia entry [en.wikipedia.org] I did find shows Richardson's law [en.wikipedia.org], but that equation doesn't have any motion or accerelation terms in it. That means you should be able to accelerate such devices at arbitarily large accelerations and not change the way the equation works. I don't know that anyone has ever tried to measure work function during acceleration.
It is certainly possible you have stumbled onto a brand-new physical effect. It would not be the first time that a complete unknown in a field has made a major contribution (one that was initially ridiculed) that allowed mankind to move into a new understanding of the physical world. Einstein is the prime example in this regard.
Here is a simple test that should be within the realm of possibility for almost anyone on this list.
Get an old vacuum tube, the fatter the better, and mount it on a rotating frame. Most tubes I have seen have a cylindrical symmetry, and so the best way to mount it would be standing upright at the center of the wheel. Don't worry about mounting it perfectly centered, a little vibration won't affect our results (it might damage the tube, so don't use a tube that you care about) The rotating frame should be capable of very high speed rotation (the effect might be undetectable at low rates of rotation.)
It's better if you can find (or make) a thermionic emission device that is linear, so the effect can be magnified by placing it far away from the center of rotation (be sure to counterbalance in this case)
Then measure the currect flow at some given cathode voltage while the tube is stationary, and again while the tube is being spun.
We aren't looking for the optimum configuration, or the best way to harvest the energy, we are merely looking for confirmation that rotation does, indeed, cause a lowering of the work function.
If this experiment is beyond you Hardcastle, then I suggest you post a reward ($50 to $100 dollars should do it I'd think) for the first person who can conduct such an experiment at a specified rate of rotation, and post the results on youtube or somewhere. You aren't paying for a specific result, just the mere fact of doing it.
The biggest problem I can see is that if it does work, it might represent the physical failure of the material in question. If super-high rotation can "throw" electrons off the surface, then what about the electrons in the material itself? Will the free electrons be followed quickly by the bound electrons resulting in little shards of the rotor being flung off? (to be followed even more quickly by big chunks of the rotor as the whole thing tears itself apart...)
Again, I don't know. I would like to see some more research or even one decent experiment. Perhaps there is a "sweet spot" where free electrons move easily and bound electrons stay put (this would depend on temperature, so it might represent a control issue)
|
]
Re: Rotating Thermionic Generator (Score: 1)
by hardcastle on Sunday, August 17, 2008 @ 02:01:41 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | Dear TechsArcana, Wow, big and interesting post, thanks.
The data I use in my calculations was from Professors Tolman & Stewart in 1915 and 1917. Their experiments were released in part in the American Journal of physics in 1923.
I am sure a reference to them is on google.
It was in fact part of a long debate at that time started by such as Maxwell when they were all debating the possible mass of an electron. Maxwell had said that if an electron had mass an acceleration of a metal would produce an emf. Subsequently a few experiments were done and especially those of Tolman (famous for many items of research and considered to be one of science greats)
Anyhow tolman derived the equation E = L x A x Me / Qe
L is conductor length
A is acceleration
Me is electron mass
Qe is electron charge
His experiments derived an estimation of the electrons mass that was within 0.1 % of the actual value.
He argued F = m x a and F = E x e
So by combining the two standard equations he got E = m x a / e
As the electrons in a conductor are, as you say like ball bearings, they push on each other in the direction of the acceleration hence he added in the conductor length.
Now his result were for a few metals and were from hundreds of measurements
He found E was approx 5.9 x 10-8 for a unit length and unit acceleration.
Note this was for a conductor insulated conductor. He never did the experiment for a conductor where electrons could come in to further add to the force. Logic says that in an insulated conductor the electrostatic bonds at both the upper and lower (or inner and outer for a rotor) act like springs on the surface free electrons. So if new elctrons are drawn in at the upper (inner surface) then the force on the outer is at least 2x.
If so then it seems reasonable to double Tolmans E to 1.2 10-7
So for a 1 metre radius disc with an acceleration of 100,000G we get 120mev and using a point or edge with a mechanical lever effect of 50:1 we get enough to overcome work function.
This is the basis of the device as said. There is no need to do the acceleration experiment with a thermionic valve (which in any case could probably only stand a few hundred G.
Logic says if an electron overcomes whatever residual work function exists it does that much work. AS calculated the replacement electron peripheral velocity of a few hundreds of metres per sec is miniscule in comparison to the work done.
Logic also says that an electron getting to vacuum with near zero velocity and having overcome say 0.2ev of work function, is cold.
As we must observe the first Law of TD we know that the electrons kinetic energy was converted and since all kinetic energy is gone it has to be in the form of potential energy. As the site of the escape is momentarily positive it is an emf. Note that even the mirror charge is modified by the 100,000G, the replacement electrons are truly pushed in from the adjoining (inward if you will) free electrons.
The reduction in mirror charge longevity and the displacement of space charge suggests that the outcome may be even better than i predict, but that is what is needed, hands on experinments. It is also the case that my design of 10e-9 Torr vacuum is excessive and it may be feasible to operate and backing pump level alone. Still I think adding Getters is good practice for long life (hopefully with use of magnetic bearings it could be 50 years operation).
The frustrating thing is that I know of hundreds of people (including professors) who say I am right but despite this the breakthrough is not being taken up for wide debate.
Skeptics chant the old physics views without thinking.
It is fantastic to read your comment. It proves there are thinkers out there and that I am managing, even if poorly, to get my physics across.
As I have tried everything to get debate (I even offered cash prize to a physics department to prove me wrong (no takers)) it is easy to become a bit disheartened.
I know this is the big breakthrough that can save the planet but it is taking so very long to get the open debate going.
If you or anyone can get the big newspapers to print this we may get the thing to happen.
We are filling out forms for govt grants but at the end of the day they may say they do not believe the Second Law can be violated and will reject our request for dollar matching funding (we get a dollar from govt for each of our own dollars)
I am putting up for sale my personal investment (a piece of land I planned to build on) to raise some funds to purchase vacuum systems and other machining equipment (spark erosion).
As you know I want all to have the technology free for domestic power. AS you can also appreciate after that I want some (1% will be more than enough) of the profit for making high output models for cars planes.
The website shows the generic compressor and expansion turbine 50KW hat box sized generator rated for 2 cubic metres of ambient air per second.
Anyhow first step is to light up a 100W bulb. I hope to do at least that by April 09 without govt money but if we get govt grant I want to go straight to a 50KW car (auto for you americans)
Best Regards Phil |
]
Re: Rotating Thermionic Generator (Score: 1)
by TechsArcana on Thursday, August 21, 2008 @ 13:05:29 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | Hardcastle,
Thanks for the response. I was unaware of Professor Tolman's work, so thanks for the tip. I was able to find the following wiki on the Stewart-Tolman effect [en.wikipedia.org] (perhaps it should be renamed the Tolman-Stewart effect? ;)
I notice that that effect speaks to EMF, not Work Function. That is to say: an accelerating conductor (linear or rotational) will produce an EMF. (Despite the lack of a magnetic field, interestingly enough.)
I'm not certain if it is correct to equate the increased EMF to a lessened work function. According to Google, there is a book titled "Histories of the Electron" which cites [books.google.com] Charles G. Darwin's work showing the limits of the Stewart-Tolman effect. In particular, he is reported as saying that "these acceleration experiments measure only the 'normal mass of free electrons.' In particular, they do not furnish any knowledge of the Fermi surfaces of a given metal." (see near bottom of page.)
In the case of an EMF produced by rotation, one would normally expect that production of the EMF would reduce the angular speed of the rotor (conservation of energy)
How that would act in the Faraday homopolar generator setup you have proposed is unclear to me. Would the magnetic field required for the homopolar generator change the parameters of the Stewart-Tolman effect?
> (I even offered cash prize to a physics department to prove me wrong (no takers))
In my experience, it is always easier to find takers to do something (regardless of results) than it is to find takers to prove something right or wrong.
Many grad students are looking for thesis material, students are always looking for beer money. I think that same cash prize for conducting a specific experiment would find more takers than one asking to be proved wrong.
I would also say, the first step is lighting a half-watt bulb. I appreciate that this effect would be simpler to produce with a larger rotor, but the vacuum requirements, etc. may be formidible.
I still think Xin & Zi's discovery has a lot of thermionic potential. (pun definitely intended.)
|
]
|
|
|
|
