The TRUTH? η = 1 – (Qc / Qh) = 1 – (Tc / Th)

[Tom Booth]

...
You constantly leave so much out and fail to have energy direction correct.

"More like 100 are converted to momentum."
Because 400 are pushing out, 300 in, for 100 J.

"The piston continues moving using up 100 "homunculus power" of momentum which allows another 100 to be converted to work powering an outside load."

200 pushing out, 300 pushing in. 100 disappear from work input used for cooling. No work output. ...

That's a fallacy or gross misconception.

For one thing it's work output at that point, not work input, and it is not "used for cooling" it is used for work output.

Cooling is a side effect of converting the heat into work output. The heat BECOMES the work output, it is not "used"

The work output results in cooling as a consequence. The heat goes out as work, so is longer present as heat.

Similar to how a heat pump used for heating also produces cold as a consequence of taking heat from one place to move it somewhere else. Cold is left behind when heat is removed. Cold is the absence of heat.

In this case however heat isn't moved, it's converted to mechanical motion to do work. Cold is what's left behind.

[Stroller]

True, a few thimbles full of air has a severely limited heat capacity. Yet this little engine apparently pushed more milliamps than my 110v wall charger.

https://youtu.be/X825itoQn_I

Driving a very cheap, inefficient generator.

I'm impressed by that performance. 3.5-5W from such a small engine is a good result with a small spirit burner. One way to verify the software would be to time how long it takes to raise the battery level by, say, 4%, according to the phone's own internal battery monitor, and then retime it with the wall charger for another 4% lift.

You could use the spirit burner to heat a litre of water in a small pan and time how long it takes it to raise the water by, say, 30C. Then calculating the spirit burner's output and the dynamo output as a percentage of that would be an easy step.

Then you'd have a 'real world' (including lost heat that never got into the working fluid, and dynamo losses) efficiency figure.

[Fool]

That is not a low temperature differential engine. Running an engine with an alcohol flame, and or, a propane torch and room temperature, is not a low temperature differential.

That's a fallacy or gross misconception.

It is the chart you provided. It clearly shows temperature rise from about 10° before top dead center, compression, to about 10° after top dead center, expansion. During that period the piston is at its slowest travel, and the displacer is moving away from the hot zone, allowing the gas to contact the hot plate. Maximum delta T heat goes in fastest, biggest temperature rise. This heat flow is more than the adiabatic temperature drop from the slow piston motion, so temperature rises. Clearly shown on the chart.

The work output results in cooling as a consequence. The heat goes out as work, so is longer present as heat.

It would be easier to understand if you didn't keep bringing in the outside pressure. Work into or out of the system can be opposite to the work into and out of the gas, because there are now two systems being modeled. One is inside, called the gas. The second is outside, the atmospheric pressure. The work into or out of the engine model is now dependent on the interplay of the two systems.

The gas still does work, experiencing internal energy removal during an adiabatic expansion, the outside does more work than the inside, not only, completely absorbing the work done by the inside but the energy supplied by the instructor seen as pulling a vacuum. It can also instead absorb the inertial energy of the piston. This will leave the gas with rejected energy, and a total input of work, not to the gas but net to the whole system. Gas energy lowering, system energy increasing.

Pulling a vacuum on a plugged syringe requires an input of work, the gas inside expands doing work for an adiabatic temperature drop. The work input by pulling, plus the work output by the gas, are both absorbed by the atmosphere, changing it negligibly, storing the energy as a spring. The springiness is cause by the difference in pressure inside and out.

[Tom Booth]

That is not a low temperature differential engine. Running an engine with an alcohol flame, and or, a propane torch and room temperature, is not a low temperature differential.

That's a fallacy or gross misconception.

It is the chart you provided. It clearly shows temperature rise from about 10° before top dead center, compression, to about 10° after top dead center, expansion. During that period the piston is at its slowest travel, and the displacer is moving away from the hot zone, allowing the gas to contact the hot plate. Maximum delta T heat goes in fastest, biggest temperature rise. This heat flow is more than the adiabatic temperature drop from the slow piston motion, so temperature rises. Clearly shown on the chart.

The work output results in cooling as a consequence. The heat goes out as work, so is longer present as heat.

It would be easier to understand if you didn't keep bringing in the outside pressure. Work into or out of the system can be opposite to the work into and out of the gas, because there are now two systems being modeled. One is inside, called the gas. The second is outside, the atmospheric pressure. The work into or out of the engine model is now dependent on the interplay of the two systems.

The gas still does work, experiencing internal energy removal during an adiabatic expansion, the outside does more work than the inside, not only, completely absorbing the work done by the inside but the energy supplied by the instructor seen as pulling a vacuum. It can also instead absorb the inertial energy of the piston. This will leave the gas with rejected energy, and a total input of work, not to the gas but net to the whole system. Gas energy lowering, system energy increasing.

Pulling a vacuum on a plugged syringe requires an input of work, the gas inside expands doing work for an adiabatic temperature drop. The work input by pulling, plus the work output by the gas, are both absorbed by the atmosphere, changing it negligibly, storing the energy as a spring. The springiness is cause by the difference in pressure inside and out.

Sorry but I can't find anything in your post coherent enough to make any sense of enough to respond to.

Your reasoning on this subject, if it can be called that, is so hopelessly garbled, upside down and twisted into contradictory knots, who knows what you might be trying to say.

[Fool]

You asked for the truth. I gave it. As Feynman said, if you don't get it "who cares".

[Tom Booth]

Amazing your arrogance thinking your barely comprehensible ramblings and opinions constitute "TRUTH".

Like some centuries old obsolete equation based on Caloric theory, that equates all the complexities of efficiency in all heat engines to a water wheel is "TRUTH".

Let's try this again,

That is not a low temperature differential engine. Running an engine with an alcohol flame, and or, a propane torch and room temperature, is not a low temperature differential.

So what? That post was not addressed to you, was it?

That's a fallacy or gross misconception.

It is the chart you provided. It clearly shows temperature rise from about 10° before top dead center, compression, to about 10° after top dead center, expansion. During that period the piston is at its slowest travel, and the displacer is moving away from the hot zone, allowing the gas to contact the hot plate. Maximum delta T heat goes in fastest, biggest temperature rise. This heat flow is more than the adiabatic temperature drop from the slow piston motion, so temperature rises. Clearly shown on the chart.

So, what's your point? Nobody said a heat engine doesn't require heat input. Adiabatic cooling, obviously doesn't begin until heat input stops. Usually about half way through the power stroke in a Stirling engine, the displacer moves to cut off heat input.

Your statement above may be true but irrelevant.

The work output results in cooling as a consequence. The heat goes out as work, so is no longer present as heat.

It would be easier to understand if you didn't keep bringing in the outside pressure. Work into or out of the system can be opposite to the work into and out of the gas, because there are now two systems being modeled. One is inside, called the gas. The second is outside, the atmospheric pressure. The work into or out of the engine model is now dependent on the interplay of the two systems.

The gas still does work, experiencing internal energy removal during an adiabatic expansion, the outside does more work than the inside, not only, completely absorbing the work done by the inside but the energy supplied by the instructor seen as pulling a vacuum. It can also instead absorb the inertial energy of the piston.

The highlighted portion above is particularly inscrutable.

The "internal energy of the piston"???

Sorry but IMO your exposition of "truth" is lacking in clarity

This will leave the gas with rejected energy, and a total input of work, not to the gas but net to the whole system. Gas energy lowering, system energy increasing.

Ditto. Who knows what your trying to say here.

Pulling a vacuum on a plugged syringe requires an input of work, the gas inside expands doing work for an adiabatic temperature drop. The work input by pulling, plus the work output by the gas, are both absorbed by the atmosphere,

OK I guess.

changing it negligibly, storing the energy as a spring. The springiness is cause by the difference in pressure inside and out.

If the atmosphere absorbs energy, that's called the gas doing work on the environment.

You might get some gas spring from the buffer in a hermetically sealed engine. You don't get anything more than 1 atmosphere from the atmosphere. For one thing the atmosphere is too vast, for another its not bounded by anything but the vacuum of space so not likely pulling on your syringe is going to add to the "springiness" of the atmosphere.

But even if it did, I fail to see the relevance.

Now how about you stop trolling me and go find somebody else to bother.

[Fool]

"The "internal energy of the piston"???"

In physics and engineering it is calculated by 1/2MV^2. It is know as kinetic energy. Why can't you get this? I'll tell you, it's call combativeness. You are outside of the realm of logic and science and cognitively looking for anything to appeal to your denial. As Feynman said, "Smart students will get it, trolls, who cares." You are trolling this web site with half baked theories based on inconclusive experiments. I'm just repeating modern scientific viewpoints. Scientists are not trolls. Science deniers are trolls. If you deny Carnot and Kelvin you are denying science. If you, getting passed this denial, and clearing your mind, is what it will take to get this. Denial will just make you defensive. My errors or inability to describe this are inconsequential to smart students getting this. Your denial is the road block. You now have two choices, study, practice, and pontificating. Or, denying your denial.

Your attempting to counter by indicating that I'm in denial won't help. I already know that, and have cleared my mind, practiced, and pontificated many many times over, and am continuing to do so. In fact I spend hours and hours contemplating. I hope you will soon. Spend more time contemplating why your experiments could be inconclusive. Please. It's obvious to me.

"You don't get anything more than 1 atmosphere from the atmosphere. "

The atmosphere puts about 15 psi onto the area of the piston. If the piston moves it either resists or adds energy to the tune of P•∆V. Of you don't understand that it is also P•A•Ds = F•D. That is more work than the lower pressure inside pushing out past the balance point. It's enough to stop the piston in a free piston engine and reverse it.

P•A•Ds = F•D
P pressure
A area of piston or cylinder.
Ds distance of the stroke.
F force on piston
D distance force and piston moved.

Nothing here but science.

[Tom Booth]

"The "internal energy of the piston"???"

In physics and engineering it is calculated by 1/2MV^2. It is know as kinetic energy.

...

"You don't get anything more than 1 atmosphere from the atmosphere. "

The atmosphere puts about 15 psi onto the area of the piston. If the piston moves it either resists or adds energy to the tune of P•∆V.
....

So you believe that pulling the plunger back on a big syringe, or the piston pushing out of the cylinder in a Stirling engine can increase atmospheric pressure from 15 psi up to about; how much do you think?

[Stroller]

If you deny Carnot and Kelvin you are denying science.

Would that be the same Lord Kelvin who assured us that heavier than air flight was impossible back in 1896 and got proved wrong by bicycle shop owners Wilbur and Orville Wright 7 years later?

[Tom Booth]

I could really care less about Carnot, Kelvin, Einstein, or Tesla. I just have some plans to build Stirling engines, so I have to know accurately how they work

I came across two opposing theories. One says basically heat is a fluid and runs through a heat engine like water. The other says heat is energy and basically "disappears" inside the engine, as it is converted to work.

If the latter is true, then it is really not necessary to design an engine around the idea that you MUST make ample provision for getting rid of 90% or the heat you supply to the engine. In fact, the more heat you can get rid of the better. Throw ALL the heat away, down to absolute zero if possible, only then will you have 100% efficiency!!

I don't know, but intentionally throwing away 90% of the stuff that a heat engine is supposed to run on didn't make a whole lot of sense to me. That heat is energy and is converted, so "disappears" well, that's a little hard to believe, but I needed to know if I'm going to build engines so did some experiments I thought might reveal what's really going on.

Well, as far as I can tell, it seems Tesla was right. Heat doesn't really need to pass THROUGH a Stirling engine at all. That could save a whole lot of wasted energy it seems to me.

I haven't found a single bit of evidence to support so-called "established science" about heat engines.

I tried to get some others to follow up and do some experiments to confirm my results. I never said anything was "conclusive", but only got banned from all the science forums.

What experiments did Carnot ever do with a Stirling engine? None.

When he heard rumors of hot air engines he wrote in his later to be published notes, that he doubted the truth of these reports. He didn't even believe hot air engines existed.

Anyway "fool" your derivation seemed like it might have some potential, but now it just seems like your ranting and preaching so good luck.

[Fool]

If you deny Carnot and Kelvin you are denying science.

Would that be the same Lord Kelvin who assured us that heavier than air flight was impossible back in 1896 and got proved wrong by bicycle shop owners Wilbur and Orville Wright 7 years later?

Probably. But for humans at least, in 1896 it was impossible, at least until 1903. I guess it boils down to wether a scientist is doing science, or predicting future human abilities from guessing. Heavier than air flight was already observable since before humans existed. Flying dinosaurs. Right? Insects, birds, mammals, bats, squirrels, spiders, snakes, ants, kites, gliders, should I continue? Lots of humans attempt to predict, erroneously, the future, usually associated will erroneous religious beliefs and dogma. Science/mathematics is perhaps the only thing that breaks through that religious denial. If you think, Tesla, Carnot and Kelvin were always wrong or always right you probably are not getting it. You, I believe are getting it (a complement), and this is making perfect sense.

Just because someone questions science, doesn't mean they are a denier. If Tom left it at 'because of my experiments, I question some of the Carnot science', it would be normal scepticism. Denying it sets the stage forcing someone to cover their own beliefs anyway possible, whenever staring at solid proof that you are wrong. I'm not here to point this all out, but you, easily, can just tell, get it, by their lack of mathematics, and or poor use of them.

I tried just answering his questions with historic observations, mathematics and scientific logic, without too much fanfare, hoping he would get it, and he has been close a few times. Then his denial kicks in and he changes what I say, and declares it wrong. He's very combative with his 'self defense' practices here. Poor debate procedures, but so much more entertaining. He's got you in here pointing out some of my tiny errors. That is a concern of mine.

Yes don't believe anything especially yourself, it's my motto. That and "who cares". LOL

[Fool]

"The "internal energy of the piston"???"

In physics and engineering it is calculated by 1/2MV^2. It is know as kinetic energy.

...

"You don't get anything more than 1 atmosphere from the atmosphere. "

The atmosphere puts about 15 psi onto the area of the piston. If the piston moves it either resists or adds energy to the tune of P•∆V.
....

So you believe that pulling the plunger back on a big syringe, or the piston pushing out of the cylinder in a Stirling engine can increase atmospheric pressure from 15 psi up to about; how much do you think?

Twisting reality for your own benefits like that is wrong. Carnot and thermodynamic theory rely on the atmosphere being a constant. The atmosphere absorbs energy without change. You are being combative. I never said any such thing. However jerking us around like that is way more entertaining. Science Fiction writers learned that lies are more sellable a long time ago. Please stick to the science and stop improvising about things I didn't say or imply. That was just plain and simply, out of the blue.

Pulling the plunger back requires an input of work energy, and reduces the temperature and pressure of the inside gas, unless the gas is heated enough at the same time. PV diagram.

[Tom Booth]

"The "internal energy of the piston"???"

In physics and engineering it is calculated by 1/2MV^2. It is know as kinetic energy.

...

"You don't get anything more than 1 atmosphere from the atmosphere. "

The atmosphere puts about 15 psi onto the area of the piston. If the piston moves it either resists or adds energy to the tune of P•∆V.
....

So you believe that pulling the plunger back on a big syringe, or the piston pushing out of the cylinder in a Stirling engine can increase atmospheric pressure from 15 psi up to about; how much do you think?

Twisting reality for your own benefits like that is wrong. Carnot and thermodynamic theory rely on the atmosphere being a constant. The atmosphere absorbs energy without change. You are being combative. I never said any such thing. However jerking us around like that is way more entertaining. Science Fiction writers learned that lies are more sellable a long time ago. Please stick to the science and stop improvising about things I didn't say or imply. That was just plain and simply, out of the blue.

Pulling the plunger back requires an input of work energy, and reduces the temperature and pressure of the inside gas, unless the gas is heated enough at the same time. PV diagram.

To quote, which anyone can go back and read:

The work input by pulling, plus the work output by the gas, are both absorbed by the atmosphere, changing it negligibly, storing the energy as a spring.

Other than throwing in "negligibly", that reads as though you believe "input by pulling" changes "it", presumably "the atmosphere" just refered to. and is "storing energy as a spring"

I was just asking for additional clarification. How much do you think "pulling the plunger" "changes" or stores energy "like a spring" in the atmosphere?

It is this kind of "I never said that" nonsense why we all have to live with a restricted edit time limit, otherwise people like you go back and change their post further "twisting reality".

[Stroller]

I came across two opposing theories. One says basically heat is a fluid and runs through a heat engine like water. The other says heat is energy and basically "disappears" inside the engine, as it is converted to work.

If the latter is true, then it is really not necessary to design an engine around the idea that you MUST make ample provision for getting rid of 90% or the heat you supply to the engine.

I don't know, but intentionally throwing away 90% of the stuff that a heat engine is supposed to run on didn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

The engine doesn't run on heat. It runs on differentials in heat, and therefore pressure. The bigger the differential in pressure throughout the cycle, the more driving force on the piston. And yes, Virginia, making the cold side cooler will increase the differential.

But you know all that, and you're just being provocative and muddying the waters for the fun of it.

Seems to me that the important question for those who count the cost of input energy (propane ain't cheap) is whether the frictional losses in bearings and pump seals, eddy currents in dynamos etc mean that you'll lose more than you gain by installing a flywheel driven cooling system.

If you have a practical use for a Stirling engine, it may make sense to supply the required energy externally (by periodically lifting a bucket of cold water into a gravity fed cooling system for example).

[Tom Booth]

I came across two opposing theories. One says basically heat is a fluid and runs through a heat engine like water. The other says heat is energy and basically "disappears" inside the engine, as it is converted to work.

If the latter is true, then it is really not necessary to design an engine around the idea that you MUST make ample provision for getting rid of 90% or the heat you supply to the engine.

I don't know, but intentionally throwing away 90% of the stuff that a heat engine is supposed to run on didn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

The engine doesn't run on heat. It runs on differentials in heat,

True that has been the prevailing blurb for a long time now. However, from my experience, observations and experiments, it looks to me like that is misleading and just plain wrong.

Heat engines actually do run on heat.

and therefore pressure.

And what is "pressure"?

Pressure is the activity of the gas molecules pressing, bumping, colliding with the container walls. Heat input increases that activity.

The bigger the differential in pressure throughout the cycle, the more driving force on the piston.

The "pressure throughout the cycle" is not quantifiable at any one point in time of the cycle.

The pressure difference at any one point in time is between internal pressure from heat addition and external atmospheric pressure, not anything to do with the presence of a cold piece of metal or supposed "sink".

OR

pressure reduction of the working fluid which again at any point in time, alters the pressure between the working fluid and outside atmosphere. Nothing to do with a cold piece of metal, but due to the removal of internal energy by either one or both of two methods. Heat removal to a "sink" or work output.

I've found through experiment that work output alone is sufficient even when heat "rejection" to any "sink" has been eliminated. In fact, eliminating the "sink" almost invariably increases RPM and power output rather than reducing it, as might be expected due to heat buildup.

The heat buildup doesn't happen, or is beneficial, if there are no material constraints, like melting plastic parts.

Also, where possible, work output is obviously preferable to "throwing away" the engines fuel supply.

Therefore I'm exploring methods for reducing unnecessary heat loss, along with ways to maximize work output.

And yes, Virginia, making the cold side cooler will increase the differential.

Making the cold side cooler may logically seem to have the effect of increase the pressure differential, given the prevailing false theories. but that is not really the case. Expanding the gas with heat increases the pressure differential. The presence of a cold piece of metal does not contribute to that process. Often it can work against it, cooling the gas you are trying to heat and expand.

With sufficient cooling due to work output there is no need for additional cooling through heat removal.

The progress of the science of heat engines has been hampered by too many assumptions stemming from old obsolete theory and not enough critical observation and experiment.

Most of the simple experiments I've been doing in just the past few years had NEVER been done before. They should have been done 200 years ago.

But you know all that, and you're just being provocative and muddying the waters for the fun of it.

Not true.

Seems to me that the important question for those who count the cost of input energy (propane ain't cheap) is whether the frictional losses in bearings and pump seals, eddy currents in dynamos etc mean that you'll lose more than you gain by installing a flywheel driven cooling system.

Work output is not a "flywheel driven cooling system" if that is what you are implying.

If you have a practical use for a Stirling engine, it may make sense to supply the required energy externally (by periodically lifting a bucket of cold water into a gravity fed cooling system for example).

As I said, drowning a heat engine with buckets of cold water is counter productive.

Better to incorporate some form of load balancing. Reducing heat input when work output diminishes while driving a variable load, and increasing heat input as the work output increases.

Applying excess heat and then using water to cool the engine to remove the excess heat is just wasting energy unnecessarily, and is one of the reasons Stirling engine development has in some ways gone backwards, largely due to the introduction of the Carnot theorem fallacy, that insists that most of the heat, or nearly all of it, MUST flow through the engine and be taken out to a "cold reservoir" rather than being fully utilized.