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

[VincentG]

I think it would be helpful to put pressure and volume values on these ideal PV graphs.

[Tom Booth]

Fool, Your basing your conclusions on largely false, incomplete, obsolete theory.

If the "Ideal gas law" for example was literally true, there would be no such thing as refrigeration and air conditioning. No such thing as liquefaction of gases or evaporation.

If kinetic theory were literally true, earths atmosphere would expand into outer space. There would be no air to breath.

You get caught up in your precise, abstracted mathematical modeling that has no correspondence with the real world of metal and machinery.

All well and good for arm chair theorizing in some ivory tower. For real hands on engineering work you need to recognize the limitations.

[Tom Booth]

I think it would be helpful to put pressure and volume values on these ideal PV graphs.

Senft was going in the right direction including "buffer pressure" and talking about "constant mechanical effectiveness" which Matt considers a "free lunch".

That's not all that's missing though.

It's like saying heavier than air flight is impossible based on weight alone or buoyancy or incomplete information generally, not taking into consideration all the factors involved.

[Fool]

No I'm not a "good student". Sorry to disappoint

I think the quote is "smart students". I can tell. Smart students learn how to identify errors in teaching, learning, and experimenting.

The rest, who cares. They won't be doing much productive anyway.

Why would your not getting it, disappoint anyone? A smart student would disappoint themselves, the other students wouldn't know.

In other words, "who cares".

Bragging about your flaws, doesn't remove the flaws. Only learning will, in this particular case.

I think you are a smart person and would want to know or get it. But I don't care. There are people reading this that will get it. I care about them.

There are people that won't.

[Tom Booth]

...There are people reading this that will get it....

Get what?

As far as I'm concerned you seem like one of the "good students" who learned dutifully to memorize and regurgitate the 200 year old obsolete so-called "science" of Carnot "calorics" theory without question or thought. It's dyed in the wool, as they say.

God help those who "get it".

[Fool]

Some don't get it.

image000000.png (136.26 KiB) Viewed 2222 times

[Fool]

The only thing more ignorant than "Get what?". Is thinking there is a god.

Try to stay out of the fantasies. Even Charles Schultz gets it. Feynman was talking about how the ability to find errors in science books makes a student smarter, and complaining about them, even fixing them, not.

[Fool]

Try not to tell people about me, you obviously know nothing about me. Your ignorance appears to be fostering your arrogance.

[Tom Booth]

You seem to have a double standard when it comes to questioning "science".

You heap mountains of derision and impossible levels of independent replication and verification etc. etc. on my casual kitchen table experiments but YOUR supposedly established science Carnot/Kelvin "efficiency limit" which has never been experimentally established must be excluded from scrutiny. That is "science denial".

I don't meet to know anything about you or tell anybody anything. Your hypocrisy is quite evident for all to see.

[Tom Booth]

Can we see some of your test results demonstrating the Carnot limit using properly calibrated thermal imaging? Thermocouples? Finger feel, "seems hot" readings? Anything?

You, Carnot, Kelvin, Clapeyron, Clausius, Maxwell, Gibbs, Boltzmann, Joule, anybody?

Has ANYONE verified this so-called "Carnot" limit experimentally, in the past 200 years?

Not that I'm aware of, and I spent years scouring all the literature, searching the internet and asking on all the science and physics forums, how, when and by whom was this "Carnot limit" verified, and I'm still asking.

The only lame response I ever get is "Well, nobody has ever built a perpetual motion machine"

However claiming a heat engine can only utilize 10% of the heat in joules supplied to it is a far cry from "perpetual motion" or "over unity". Wouldn't that have to be at least more than 100% ?

[Fool]

I know you've seen the following two video links before. When you make engines as capable as these, or better, using your theories, people will be more willing to listen. Until then you will get a lot of opposition. Be very kind to those that stop to listen, and even kinder to those that enter into discussions. You have nothing to lose by doing so.

In the videos it is very important to notice the correlation of heat flow direction, absorption, rejection, and to the rotational direction. It is important to notice the description of the head difference between engine and refrigerator. And this was all done in the 1940's and 50's. This is the closest I have found to your requested information. Temperatures blatantly obvious and at large differentials.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GqIapDKtvzc

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GFfMruoRMGo

Reading the comments helps too.

They were successful using the Carnot theory and Kinetic theory. Kinda puts an acceptance on those theories.

You keep claiming that lots of heat is being dumped to the cold plate, in Carnot theory, but the theory doesn't speak of 'amount' of heat. It speaks of proportions of heat, energy, temperature, Work, COP, and Efficiency. It could be only one percent efficient and pump only 1/10 Watt to the cold plate. Producing 0.001 W of output power. That is very close to what LTD engines do produce, when under load. Less when run free.

The Carnot theory is based on W=Qh-Qc. You have only measured temperature. Your Qh value isn't Qh, it is total energy to the heat source. No measurement as to where it actually goes. Assuming it goes into the engine is a bad assumption. You have no value for Work, or Qc. No way of determining efficiency. A.K.A., Inconclusive.

If the theory is useable, it is not bogus or ludicrous. At least until a better, more useful, and accurate, reliable theory comes along to replace it. And then the old theory may still be used where appropriate. Flat Earth theory is still used to build houses, buildings, bridges and dams. Round Earth Theory is needed for building long roads, ship and aircraft navigation, space missions, etc.

Me being skeptical, of the premature conclusions you put fourth from poorly done home garage kitchen experiments, and instead, using 200 year old consistent, useful, and productive, standard thermodynamics, is hardly being in denial of science or hypocritical. Please...

I have a lot more than a "double standard", when questioning science, and even more for other things. Scientific papers, people, and practices are not all created equal. LOL. In fact some writings are intentionally fraudulent. Some are called novels. Fun to read but my scientific standard is very low for them. Furthermore, the papers that have obvious contradictions and logical errors, get pushed low on the score list too. However, I do weigh them from other viewpoints as to if there is anything of merit despite the errors. Call it the Feynman effect. Find the errors and learn more

Your twisting of evidence, inconsistent logic, slippery slope and other logical fallacies are very plain to see.

If the Carnot limit is 20%, the reversed Carnot will have a COP of 5, ideally. The two hooked together will return 100% of the heat back to the hot source, removing all heat rejected to the cold sink. That is acceptable constant theory.

If you hook a new engine to that reversed Carnot that is 21% efficient and of the same size and other constraints, it will return 101% of the heat back to the hot source. This is called, "Over Unity". Over unity from an engine with only 21% efficiency. Ideally. In reality all three real machines will have half of those values, 10%, 2.5, and 10.5%. They are in no danger of going over unity.

The worst part is I hope someone does build an over unity machine. It just doesn't seem likely. But I don't want to discourage anyone. We, humans Earth, need it Trying to do so will be a great learning experience. It was for me in highschool with capillary tube investigation. Please build, keep building, and above all be rigorous, and comprehensive.

[Tom Booth]

I know you've seen the following two video links before. When you make engines as capable as these, or better, using your theories, people will be more willing to listen. Until then you will get a lot of opposition. Be very kind to those that stop to listen, and even kinder to those that enter into discussions. You have nothing to lose by doing so.
...

Well, yes I do.

A LOT of wasted time and A LOT of delayed progress. Time and energy wasted that could be much more profitably spent making forward progress rather than having to rebuff attacks, accusations, miss characterizations, miss direction and straw man arguments from "Trolls" who constantly divert and derail conversations into non-issues and nonsensical debates over semantic minutiae over and over in an endless merry-go-round that never goes anywhere, and make no constructive contributions to the conversation.

[Tom Booth]

...

The Carnot theory is based on W=Qh-Qc. You have only measured temperature...
...

No it isn't. That is conservation of energy plain and simple. The Carnot limit contradicts conservation of energy.

The rest of your post, as usual, is mostly opinionated, largely incoherent rambling.

[Tom Booth]

...

Your twisting of evidence, inconsistent logic, slippery slope and other logical fallacies are very plain to see.

If the Carnot limit is 20%, the reversed Carnot will have a COP of 5, ideally. The two hooked together will return 100% of the heat back to the hot source, removing all heat rejected to the cold sink. That is acceptable constant theory.
...

Sorry, but your talking nonsense.

Unfortunately, in Carnot world this is par for the course

You can't return 1%

It's been converted to WORK. The heat has gone out as "work" and is lighting city lights, cooking eggs and toast on electric appliances, pumping water or whatever the work output is used for.

"The two hooked together will return 100% of the heat back to the hot source" is Caloric theory nonsense. A violation of conservation of energy

If heat is energy it can't ever be returned after it's been converted to some other form of energy,

You think heat can "do work" and still be "returned" afterwards when that energy is already gone, radiated to outer space perhaps by outdoor lighting or used in some other way.

These foolish "reverse Carnot engine" scenarios are based on a fallacy. Foolish, ridiculous nonsense.

Heat is not conserved. It doesn't flow to a "cold reservoir". There is no such thing as a "reverse Carnot engine".

Anyway, if you're going to use a heat pump to deliver heat to your heat engine why get the heat from "the cold reservoir" when you could get it straight from the "hot reservoir".

[Fool]

Heat is returned in a thing called a heat pump.