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

[Tom Booth]

Heat is returned in a thing called a heat pump.

How?

The heat engine runs a generator.

The heat is converted to electricity.

You can't return what's no longer there. Or anywhere. It's no longer heat at all.

The "heat" has been converted and has gone out as "work".

[Fool]

Work is put back in. Gets converted to heat. Picks up some of the rejected to cold sink heat. Puts both out onto the hot source.

[Stroller]

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

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".

The videos are awesome. Thanks for posting those. Watching the top of the displacer dome make liquid air recalls Tom's contention that mechanical work can reduce the temperature of the working fluid, although this is work put into the sytem rather than work done by the system.

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.

I'm currently working with a physicist on a purely electrical thruster that works in vacuum. No back reaction. It defies Newton's laws of motion. Replicated by four labs so far, a results paper is currenly being reviewed, and a space test is coming next year.

One of the spin-offs is that "over unity" power generation should, in theory, be possible. The energy will be coming from the quantum field, if we can get it to work.
We'll keep trying, because as you say, we humans, and Earth, need it.

[Fool]

Excellent. I wish you the best on that. Is it part of the, Martin Tajmar's group at the Dresden University of Technology? I heard rumors they are working on similar EM devices.

[Stroller]

Heh, no. Martin, the old rascal, has rubbished everyone elses efforts with some ropey test procedures, to try to get ahead of the curve. We're UK based, but collaborating with stateside companies too.

[Tom Booth]

...
The videos are awesome. Thanks for posting those. Watching the top of the displacer dome make liquid air recalls Tom's contention that mechanical work can reduce the temperature of the working fluid, ...

That's hardly my "contention", it's a well established fact. Textbook physics/thermodynamics.

[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, 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.
...

With that statement, you are basically calling me a liar. Someone who lies just for jollies. I'll Iet you know now, I don't appreciate being misrepresented and slandard.

You're opinions and.beliefs are apparently so fixed you can't imagine anyone actually having a different point of view about how a Stirling engine operates without being a liar.

Actually, if you ever read Carnot's own previously unpublished journals, when he learned of new experiments that disproved the Caloric theory he said the same things I'm saying now.

If heat is self contained molecular motion, why should there be any need for a cold "sink" to supposedly attract the heat or motivate it to "flow"?

The energy in the molecules is one form of motion called heat. Mechanical work is another form of motion. One form can be changed into the other and back again. These transformations of motion all take place within the engine, not "flowing" through the engine to some external "cold reservoir".

Heat is simply motive power, or rather motion which has changed form. It is a movement among the particles of bodies. Wherever there is destruction of motive power there is, at the same time, production of heat in quantity exactly proportional to the quantity of motive power destroyed. Reciprocally, wherever there is destruction of heat, there is production of motive power.

Extracts from Unpublished Writings of Carnot:

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Reflec ... Appendix_A

Keep unjustly attacking my character, my integrity, honesty etc. and I will have no choice but to report such posts to the moderator/admin/owner. And that goes for your buddy "fool" as well.

[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.
...

With that statement, you are basically calling me a liar. Someone who lies just for jollies. I'll Iet you know now, I don't appreciate being misrepresented and slandard.

OK. If you don't think Stirling engines run on differentials in pressure and that increasing the temperature differential by cooling the cold side will increase the pressure differential then I'm sorry.

Keep unjustly attacking my character, my integrity, honesty etc. and I will have no choice but to report such posts to the moderator/admin/owner. And that goes for your buddy "fool" as well.

To avoid such a situation arising, I won't respond to your posts any more. To avoid me being tempted to, please don't respond to mine either.
Good luck with your endeavours.

[Tom Booth]

... please don't respond to mine either.
...

I'll respond (politely) as I see fit, in particular any time I'm being misrepresented, my experiments are being criticized, my intentions are being falsely represented, foolish theories regarding my experiments are being put forward in an effort to dismiss my data, etc. etc.

I welcome constructive criticism. If you can't handle someone having a different point of view without making it personal and using ad hominem type arguments in an effort to dismiss the data. Well, personally, I don't care. If you think I'm a liar because I have a different opinion, that can be addressed. But the forum owner, apparently does not like these debates getting ugly and does not want me taking such situations into my own hands, by, for example, telling you to "get lost".

It is of course, not my place to make such a determination. I prefer not to ban anyone for any reason and think an occasional "flame war" is good medicine, but I don't set the policy here. So fair warning, piss me off with personal attacks on my honesty, character etc. I have no option other than to report it rather than retaliate tit for tat.

I'm not going to just stand quite while being misrepresented and abused by some Johny come lately to the forum with an oversized estimation of his own self importance.

[Tom Booth]

...
OK. If you don't think Stirling engines run on differentials in pressure and that increasing the temperature differential by cooling the cold side will increase the pressure differential then I'm sorry.
...

That is a conditional "apology" based on a misrepresentation of my position, so actually no apology at all.

Actually, it even misrepresents your original assertion which was:

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

Not "pressure".

And no, I do not think Stirling engines run on differentials in heat. That, IMO is a fallacy.

The working fluid is expanded by the application of heat, period.

The heat expands the gas and is "used up" in the process. Converted.

In the process of expansion, the temperature of the working fluid itself may not even rise, if the process is isothermal, it only expands.

In the process of expansion the final temperature is the same as it was or lower, because the internal energy was reduced.

The "temperature differential" then, is a consequence, an effect rather than a cause.

[Tom Booth]

To add to the above. A Stirling engine, much like a heat pump or refrigerator, at least in part CREATES a temperature differential, or perhaps MAINTAINS the given temperature differential, it does not "run on" the temperature differential.

To say the engine "runs on a temperature differential" suggests or implies, or a causative relation.

That is like saying a refrigerator or heat pump "runs on" the temperature differential it is actually creating.

A Stirling engine creates or maintains a given temperature differential by converting the heat input into mechanical "work" output. It does not "run on" the temperature differential, though that is a common misconception based on the obsolete Caloric theory of heat as some kind of fluid that flows "down" the thermometric mountain from a hot to a cold "reservoir".

IMO a rather silly, nonsensical and childish concept.

Heat engines run on heat. Heat engines "running on ice" are running on ambient heat not a temperature difference.

The importance attributed to COLD by Carnot was a fallacy even he finally recognized as reflected in his unpublished works.

We may be allowed to express here an hypothesis in regard to the nature of heat.

At present, light is generally regarded as the ​result of a vibratory movement of the ethereal fluid. Light produces heat, or at least accompanies the radiating heat, and moves with the same velocity as heat. Radiating heat is then a vibratory movement. It would be ridiculous to suppose that it is an emission of matter while the light which accompanies it could be only a movement.

Could a motion (that of radiating heat) produce matter (caloric)?

No, undoubtedly; it can only produce a motion. Heat is then the result of a motion.

Then it is plain that it could be produced by the consumption of motive power, and that it could produce this power.


All the other phenomena—composition and decomposition of bodies, passage to the gaseous state, specific heat, equilibrium of heat, its more or less easy transmission, its constancy in experiments with the calorimeter—could be explained by this hypothesis. But it would be difficult to explain why, in the development of motive power by heat, a cold body is necessary; why, in consuming the heat of a warm body, motion cannot be produced.


It appears very difficult to penetrate into the real essence of bodies. To avoid erroneous reasoning, it would be necessary to investigate carefully ​the source of our knowledge in regard to the nature of bodies, their form, their forces; to see what the primitive notions are, to see from what impressions they are derived; to see how one is raised successively to the different degrees of abstraction.


Is heat the result of a vibratory motion of molecules? If this is so, quantity of heat is simply quantity of motive power. As long as motive power is employed to produce vibratory movements, the quantity of heat must be unchangeable; which seems to follow from experiments with the calorimeter; but when it passes into movements of sensible extent, the quantity of heat can no longer remain constant.


Can examples be found of the production of motive power with actual consumption of heat? It seems that we may find production of heat with consumption of motive power (re-entrance of the air into a vacuum, for example).


What is the cause of the production of heat in combinations of substances? What is radiant caloric?


Liquefaction of bodies, solidification of liquids, ​crystallization—are they not forms of combinations of integrant molecules?


Supposing heat due to a vibratory movement, how can the passage from the solid or the liquid to the gaseous state be explained?


When motive power is produced by the passage of heat from the body A to the body B, is the quantity of this heat which arrives at B (if it is not the same as that which has been taken from A, if a portion has really been consumed to produce motive power) the same whatever may be the substance employed to realize the motive power?

Is there any way of using more heat in the production of motive power, and of causing less to reach the body B? Could we even utilize it entirely, allowing none to go to the body B? If this were possible, motive power could be created without consumption of combustible, and by mere destruction of the heat of bodies.

[Tom Booth]

...

To say the engine "runs on a temperature differential" suggests or implies, or a causative relation.
...

Should have been

To say the engine "runs on a temperature differential" suggests or implies, or assumes a causative relation."

Not sure what my phones rather over zealous "auto-correct" did with the word assumes.

Anyway, I'm not joking, lying, deliberately trying to "muddle things up" or muddy the waters or whatever.

The difference between "running on" and creating or maintaining a temperature difference may seem like hair splitting or making much out of an inconsequential difference, but although the distinction is perhaps subtle, it is not inconsequential.

It is really the difference between the obsolete Caloric theory and the modern conception of heat as energy.

Energy, not a fluid flowing between two levels of the thermometric scale, or between a high and lower "temperature difference".

[VincentG]

But Tom, you can't deny that Stirling engines can run on hot and cold temperature diffentials can you?

[Tom Booth]

But Tom, you can't deny that Stirling engines can run on hot and cold temperature diffentials can you?

What is actually going on?

Take away the extraneous trappings and look at what is actually happening with the working fluid and piston.

You have a piston. Trapped air on one side, open atmosphere on the other, in equilibrium before the engine starts. Where is the ∆T? Nowhere.

Suppose instead of applying heat from an external "reservoir" we add energy to the working fluid directly. Let's say with a microwave beam directed at the gas particles. The internal energy of the gas increases causing the gas to expand and drive the piston.

The added energy has increased pressure, but temperature? Possibly, but this is apparently not essential. So how, or in what way is the engine "running on" i.e. powered by a temperature difference?

The gas increases in internal energy, expands, aquires velocity, does work transferring energy to the piston, looses it's acquired energy and returns to its former state.

Heat goes in, the gas expands, work goes out in equal measure, the gas contracts.

Heat is perhaps one means of increasing the internal energy of the gas but a pre-existing temperature difference is not needed.

The gas takes in energy starting from a point where it is in thermal equilibrium with the environment. No ∆T.

But it isn't so much that a temperature difference is or isn't required, it's the false narrative that a temperature difference means a flow through from hot to cold and that the greater the ∆T the stronger the "flow" so the more heat traveling through to the "sink".

This picture of a river of heat flowing through the engine is completely false.

If you want a water analogy, a better way of looking at it, I think, is that the engine is like a dam holding heat back and preventing any flow. It is engineered in such a way as to force the heat to do work and prevent heat "flow". Likening heat to a flow of liquid though is really not an accurate or productive analogy. It's misleading and results in engines designed to increase the "flow" of heat through the engine, when what you really want to do is prevent it

Any heat "flow" can only be in the form of waste heat.

Work output results from preventing any "flow" of heat, instead utilizing it for "work" production.

Naturally, some loss is unavoidable. Friction etc. But the loses or heat flow to the sink predicted or assumed by the so-called "Carnot Limit" equation are utterly ridiculous and baseless and cannot be substantiated empirically. It fails any experimental proof that could be devised.

It's baloney.

[VincentG]

The added energy has increased pressure, but temperature? Possibly, but this is apparently not essential. So how, or in what way is the engine "running on" i.e. powered by a temperature difference?

I think this is the unicorn forest Matt always talks about.

Explain the mechanism where pressure increases without a temperature increase.

Isn't the fact of the matter that a temperature diffential is needed to start the process?

How would an ambient heat powered engine start running without first having colder air to heat with ambient energy?