Tom Booth wrote:According to the theory, or "LAW" a REAL heat engine will ALWAYS "reject" more heat than a Carnot engine.
That is only true if the amount of heat going into an engine is the same. You haven't measured the heat going into the engine. In fact you haven't even measured the temperature of the hot plate inside the engine, or the cold plate inside the engine. You've used the puniest engine type. It produces zero measured work. It has an efficiency of zero, no work output. Yet you still insists you are the only one that can interpret that lack of evidence as proof that the second law is invalid and all of the universities are conspiring against you, the self proclaimed poor frustrated impatient lad that you are. I'm sorry.
Again if your real engine doesn't absorb as much heat, blown off as mass in an invisible steam leakage, etc... it won't reject much heat, but it will still be more than the Carnot percentage. 75% of one Joule is less than one Joule. I doubt you'd measure any change in temperature using the measurement practices you have been doing for one or two Watts.
One of your experiments did measure temperature rise. The only reason you reported it was because it registered as a drop, because you had the thermal couple in backwards. Denying that temperature rise, as you seem to do, is one of the errors associated with science deniers.
Tom Booth wrote:Other than that, I only stated as a matter of historic record that there has never been any experiment testing the validity of the Carnot theory.
You seem to miss the scientific fact that no engine has ever broken the first law, second law, and the Carnot Theorem, of thermodynamics. Why do you deny that? Everyone else can see it. This, plain and simply, is science denial. Denying an obvious and consistent data set is bad form, and a form of cognitive dissonance.
The Carnot Theorem doesn't require a Carnot engine to falsify it's claim. Any real engine breaking that theorem will do. Falsifiability is not a problem. There are plenty of ways to test that theorem, every engine built does so. All that is needed is one super efficient engine and the ability to reproduce it to render the theorem false, (It would be the proverbial black swan.)
In other words, the Carnot Theorem has falsifiability. It has been tested and challenged by every designer, and every engine. Please come back after easily done measuring of your engine's work output. You may find it doesn't break it either.
Tom Booth wrote:Your claim "fool" that such an approach is invalid seems disingenuous. There are dozens and dozens of textbook examples similar to the above making exactly that kind of determination.
A text book engine rejecting an Ideal 75 Joules of heat, doesn't mean your tiny little LTD machine is absorbing any more than 1 Joule. You must provide easy to measure data to support your absorbed energy, and easily measured work output. Only with those two values can Carnot efficiencies be compared. There is no reason that an engine that is obeying Carnot by rejecting 75% of absorbed heat has to have a temperature rise of the cold plate. It may just be rejecting micro Watts and have zero work output, and very little energy absorbed.
It is not the theory, which you seem to disregard indignantly, that is invalid. It is your lack of measurements that invalidates your test. Please make the measurements. I'm confident that if you do we won't need to have these discussions anymore. You will have answered your mystery question of the temperature anomaly. But maybe not. It's in your ballpark not mine. Go ahead an proceed with conclusions from insufficient data, or choose to retest measuring the recommended extra points. And reevaluate. Your choice. Fool yourself, as we all do, or investigate yourself out of your mistakes. We have, out of helpful kindness, pointed out some necessary improvements.
Tom Booth wrote:Do you speak English?
Yes I do speak and write English, moot point. I'm patiently trying to insert the proper technical terms to very resistant friends. The colloquialism "massive", is nothing more than a sematic game, for large amounts of energy, or significant energy.
The problem is, the efficiency is a ratio of energy in, verses, energy out. You have measured neither for your tiny little LTD engine, so your conclusion of "massive"/lots of energy, is inconclusive and most likely incorrect. My guess, and it is an educated guess, is that the tiny puny little engine can't absorb much more than a few Joules at best, possibly less than one per cycle, 1 or 2 Watts. The rest is just blasted off into the atmosphere as steam. Steam is a massive loss of energy, as it is a flow of hot mass.
There is a difference between good technical terminology and the consequences of using bad misleading or erroneous terms. I'm just striving to improve this website. Please help.