Struggling With Internal Energy..

[Tom Booth]

Perhaps you should work on the capacity to agree to disagree and move on with your work.

How about you mind your own judgemental ass business.

I've told "fool" we can agree to disagree several times, but he has not been willing to leave me the hell alone. If you don't know that you've had your head in the sand.

I've also said leave me out of your conversations and I'll have no reason to interject, but you guys just can't help yourselves.

As long as people continue to address me, criticize my experiments or theories, participate in my threads etc. etc. I think I'm pretty much forced into responding.

Start your own topics, do your own experiments, whatever, but if you or fool or whomever thinks I'm not going to stand up for myself while being ridiculed and criticized you've got another thing coming.

If you want to talk about "internal energy" go ahead. I'm not stopping you.

I'm only here to clarify, I am NOT "struggling" with "internal energy". It's not a complicated subject IMO.

If you think that is "arrogant", sorry, but it's just the truth. What's complicated or difficult about it? Nothing.

Fool likes to make it SEEM complicated.

[Fool]

I'm only here to clarify, I am NOT "struggling" with "internal energy". It's not a complicated subject IMO.

Please do. Clarify, and show us the mathematics revolving around internal energy, and please make it simple.

[Tom Booth]

I'm only here to clarify, I am NOT "struggling" with "internal energy". It's not a complicated subject IMO.

Please do. Clarify, and show us the mathematics revolving around internal energy, and please make it simple.

Your again twisting my words or have reading comprehension issues.

I will rephrase:

I'm only here to clarify, (make clear, say, state for the record) that contrary to "fools" and/or Matt Browns assertions: I am NOT "struggling" with "internal energy", or whatever Matt and/or fool might be rambling on about.

I have been over and done with the subject for some time and have, or would like to moved on away from theory generally and towards design and implementation.

I am simply here to address an untruth and misrepresentation being repeated about me. I'm not at all interested in debating the topic itself which has already been done to death.

I personally don't believe you actually have any interest in the subject, you want to "correct", "educate", "teach" as your intro indicates:

Thermodynamics is difficult to learn mostly because it is difficult to teach

You have positioned yourself as "teacher" and "Tom" (and or whomever else) as "struggling" student, as you do habitually.

"Some students get it, for those who don't who cares" is your constant disgusting arrogant refrain.

As you do not hesitate to point out at other times, my opinions on this or any other subject are already available all over the forum, supposedly on every other thread so need no repeating here.

We have a fundamental disagreement. I am not interested in you being my "teacher". Get a life and leave me alone please.

[Fool]

It is a logical fallacy to think things are cleared up by denying an obvious fact. All anyone needs to do in this thread is read it to see that, you are your own worst enemy and those around you are trying to help you. All of us are here to clear things up.

You seem to be here for some defensive of the superiority of lack of formal education, as you constantly bash it and it's lessons, even though you appear to know little to nothing about it having not received any yourself. Many around here, also lacking any advanced education, are not so defensive. A few, and this website is lucky to have them have that formal education. Those that do, easily understand how all people struggle with thermodynamics. Your denying that struggle is obvious from reading your words here, not from others. The only thing you've clarified here is your denial of a desire to learn.

You counter by a claiming that it is simple, implying that anyone can learn, but when asked for that simple approach, you say you don't want to do it. I know you don't care what others think, but you think about what position that puts this website in, and you. Not good. It makes you appear baseless. Makes the website look useless and feeble. It is the classical science that is presented and supported here that has any chance of making this website informative. I'm here in defense of science and this website, as are a few others. You are in this thread in an erroneous defiance of some self serving cause you trumped up. You are only attempting to defend yourself from baseless claims, but are actually doing more damage to this website and yourself than anyone else. Picking on Matt and Vincent just makes you look like a fool. The only thing that will help you at this point is an apology.

I apologize for using your name in the opening post. If I'd known how sensitive you were, and how you'd react to an intended compliment, I'd probably have done it on purpose just to rattle your cage, or to prove how much you are destructive to yourself. You've certainly destroyed any sensible discussions about the subject, 'struggles with internal energy and heat'. As you have in that thread too. I'm not so cruel that I would do that, and apologize for the tirade and name calling it forced you to use on us.

Sheesh, "what a whiner". Please watch the end of the movie 'Serenity'.

[Fool]

To "agree to disagree" is a logical fallacy and it fails any logical relevance. It is an erroneous attempt to claim that both of the opposing points are valid, and trivializes the entire discussion. It is very demeaning. It makes the claim that both sides are nothing more than blowhard opinion. It attempts this claim, but fails, using nothing more than fallacy for evidence. Good luck with that.

[Tom Booth]

OK, well "internal energy" is self explanatory.

Energy that is internal. (As opposed to external).

Happy?

Edit: in relation or in regard to "the system" in this context.

[Fool]

LOL. How does that get entered into any predictive equations? Your definition has no science basis. Leaves more questions than it answers.

What is internal, what is energy, what is a system? What use is it?

[Tom Booth]

LOL. How does that get entered into any predictive equations? Your definition has no science basis. Leaves more questions than it answers.

What is internal, what is energy, what is a system? What use is it?

Like I said, you "fool" like to complicate things unnecessarily.

[VincentG]

To "agree to disagree" is a logical fallacy and it fails any logical relevance. It is an erroneous attempt to claim that both of the opposing points are valid, and trivializes the entire discussion. It is very demeaning. It makes the claim that both sides are nothing more than blowhard opinion. It attempts this claim, but fails, using nothing more than fallacy for evidence. Good luck with that.

Negative. Two opposing truths can exist at the same time. Agree to disagree means to respect the other opinion/truth, but then go on and explore the depths of your own opinion/truth. There is no need to burn the bridge down as new discoveries/observations are made. Wilbur Wright said man will never fly. Well I guess he agreed to disagree with himself.

[Fool]

I would hope that intelligent people have a reasonable discussion having two valid correct points would be able to get both sides to see the two valid points, and agree to agree that the two points are valid. I had such a discussion about gear ratios with a transmission shop. I was looking for a gear ratio of 2.95 and the owner called it a high ratio. I said isn't it a low ratio, as most have a higher number like 3.05 or 4.11.

He said, "It depends on how you look at it." I said "okay." Because from that simple brilliant comment, I realized that the ratio number was a lower number, but the gearing was a higher gear. Okay, gear ratio lingo goes with the gear, and car velocity effect, not with the mathematics. Good teaching on his behalf, good learning in mine. Neither point was wrong pure agreement. Thanks.

The following website is an interesting insight to the first airplane:

https://www.wright-brothers.org/History ... %20fly.%22

A quote from it:

The problems they had encountered seemed too complex to overcome. Greater minds with greater resources had tried and failed; who were they to think they could have succeeded? Wilbur told Orville on the train ride back to Dayton, "Not within a thousand years would man ever fly."

I think I read it some years ago. Thanks for the relook. Those men were quite phenomenal. They shouted at each other to solve the problems of flight. They always found an acceptable agreement to pursue, right or wrong, until success.

The Ohio bishop was a troubled man.

Bishop Milton Wright, dedicated clergyman, was no Bishop Usher, who two centuries earlier computed by the Bible that the date of creation was 4004 B.C.

He delivered a sermon in his Dayton church: “If God had meant man to fly, he would have given him wings.”

He then went home to his family and two sons, Wilber and Orville.

Being wrong is being wrong, agreeing to disagree solves nothing. Tom had it more correct with live and let live. Tom has been on this sight for a long time. I have been lurking, and studying Stirling engines since before the turn of the millennium. I have an engineering degree. I have learned from and because of Tom. When I didn't follow his points over the years and years of lurking, I would study and research more. There is sufficient experimental data out there for me to follow without having to redo any of it. YouTube videos, written lectures. It all fits in.

Over the years he's repetitively asked, dared people to prove him wrong. I've seen many try, only to leave because of mistreatment. Unfortunately, as the proof gets close to his beliefs he shuts down with an onslaught of vituperation.

Here is an example of him shutting down, fairly politely I might add:

Like I said, you "fool" like to complicate things unnecessarily.

Tom, your oversimplification, and lack of mathematics, gets us nowhere.

Internal energy 'U' for a system in the equation below:

∆U=Q-W

Q going into a system
W coming out of a system.

Is way more useful and leads to other useful equations.and is simple. Many struggle with separating Q and U.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_energy

[Tom Booth]

...

Tom, your oversimplification, and lack of mathematics, gets us nowhere.

Internal energy 'U' for a system in the equation below:

∆U=Q-W

Q going into a system
W coming out of a system.

Is way more useful and leads to other useful equations.and is simple. Many struggle with separating Q and U.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_energy

Who's struggling?

From your sources:

Q:

In thermodynamics, heat is the thermal energy transferred between systems due to a temperature difference.

U:

The internal energy of a thermodynamic system is the energy contained within it,

As I've been saying.

You are the one habitually mixing and confusing U internal energy with Q heat transfered to the system.

You confuse heat actually supplied (transfered due to a ∆T) with the ambient energy already in the system.

Incidentally, academia is doing the same thing with the way "Carnot efficiency" is being interpreted, which is the same way you have been interpreting it in your long confused convoluted "derivations".

[Fool]

You confuse heat actually supplied (transfered due to a ∆T) with the ambient energy already in the system.

Incidentally, academia is doing the same thing with the way "Carnot efficiency" is being interpreted, which is the same way you have been interpreting it in your long confused convoluted "derivations".

Please supply us with a way to calculate the "ambient energy already in the system." Is that the same as internal energy, or internal thermal energy? U=MCvTh?

Does "heat actually supplied (transfered due to a ∆T) ", add to the "ambient energy already in the system"? Or do your equations treat them separately? What are your equations? Can Work input to a system add to the heat input to a system increase the "the ambient energy already in the system" by adding to it? How do you keep track of total energy in the system? What variables do you use for each?

Sorry for all the questions, but without them answered, your definitions are meaningless, mathematically.

Academia treats Q, U, W, T, Mass, and others such as coefficient of heat (measured empirically in laboratories) for real gasses, in meticulous logical, rigorous mathematical, and useful ways to predict things that must pass all laboratory testing. The Carnot theorem is one such set of equations. It has been tested by over 200 years of engine building, and mathematical, challenge. Your baseless bashing and ranting are nothing more than, humorous and destructive misleading stories.

Either supply your new and improved equations, or stop ranting and bashing the website with hearsay and false promises.

Discussing these principles requires mathematical support, please supply some. Without equations to the contrary, you got nothing. A set of science bashing without equations is a useless denial of reality. People have struggled successfully over many years to come up with the equations now taught in academia. Bashing academia without any equations proves you unaware of your struggles.

Richard Feynman "feeling like a dumb ape" was well aware of struggling, and knew that he had more undiscovered
unrealised struggles to discover.

"I know that I know nothing" : Socrates.

Tom Booth knows everything, everything (or at least thermodynamics ) is simple, therefore he has no struggles.

Your denial of your own struggles is your biggest unaware struggle to overcome. Been there, am there, will be there the rest of my life, hopefully i can become a better better student by accepting that predicament, and continue to struggle and learn. "And loving it." : 86.

[Tom Booth]

A confusion between two concepts does not involve mathematics, it involves common sense.

You erroneously insinuate I have some issues with the equation: ∆U=Q-W, but I do not.

The internal energy U can change ∆ by the addition or subtraction of either heat or work.

If either heat or work are added or subtracted from the internal energy the internal energy will increase or decrease.

Fundamentally work and heat are equivalent. Different labels for one and the same unit of energy.

You seem to think or be arguing that an increase in U that results from heat addition can only be reduced by heat removal, which misses the entire point regarding the equivalence of heat and work.

You don't need more math, you need a better understanding of basic thermodynamic concepts.

As goofy's earlier quote from Tesla:

Allow me to quote Nikola Tesla :

“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. ”

You are so lost in mathematical abstractions you've lost touch with what the symbols actually represent in reality.

[matt brown]

Who's struggling?

From your sources:

Q:

In thermodynamics, heat is the thermal energy transferred between systems due to a temperature difference.

U:

The internal energy of a thermodynamic system is the energy contained within it,

As I've been saying.

You are the one habitually mixing and confusing U internal energy with Q heat transfered to the system.

You confuse heat actually supplied (transfered due to a ∆T) with the ambient energy already in the system.

Here's a small table comparing the 3 heating processes across a range of temperatures.

expansion processes.png (19.78 KiB) Viewed 1708 times

Header calls out that UQW values are fuzzy J, but Fool will likely recognize it's my bogus Vcc and know both real volume and mass (as I used to tell a girlfriend, nothing beats experience LOL). I wanted UQW values inline some famous ratios in case someone wants to dot my i's and cross my t's (good luck with that).

OK, all these values have the same gas mass and each process is indexed from uniform 100k increments. There's various takeaways from this simple table, but here's a few...

(1) U is linear T regardless of process

(2) isothermal has Q/W=1 vs isobaric has Q/W=3.5 simply due that when isobaric=2x V, then 2x T and 2x U follow

(3) Tom - note the isothermal values carefully where each 100k increment magically 'allows' more Q and W from the same gas mass and volume ratio. We always hear about Cv and Cp heat capacity, but I've never seen anyone suggest constant temperature heat capacity (would be hard to define). Nevertheless, here it is...where isothermal heat capacity varies by temperature by borrowing the existing internal energy of the gas. Fool's been choking on this forever, but Jack gave me an idea recently on how to resolve this apparent dilemma.

Vincent - these gasses are smart (they even know when to allow more Q and W) LOL

I'm working on a similar table for adiabatic expansion...

[Fool]

A confusion between two concepts does not involve mathematics, it involves common sense.

If they are mathematical concepts, they require mathematical common sense, aka. equations.

You erroneously insinuate I have some issues with the equation: ∆U=Q-W, but I do not.

The internal energy U can change ∆ by the addition or subtraction of either heat or work.

If either heat or work are added or subtracted from the internal energy the internal energy will increase or decrease.

Good. So do you accept the following:

∆U=Q-W

∆U=U2-U1=Q-W

U2=U1+Q+W

U1=MCvTc

U2=MCvTh

∆U=MCv(Th -Tc)=MCvTh-MCvTc

???

They are the equations that go with the first law, conservation of energy.

Fundamentally work and heat are equivalent. Different labels for one and the same unit of energy.

Work and heat are energy in transit. Energy can be quantified with the units of Joules, calories, watt hours, horsepower seconds, etc... it is best to use the same units throughout. But that doesn't make work the same as heat. An equivalence exists, yes. Equivalence, and "The same", are not the same. Mathematically speaking.

You seem to think or be arguing that an increase in U that results from heat addition can only be reduced by heat removal, which misses the entire point regarding the equivalence of heat and work.

I'm arguing that adiabatic processes do not involve heat transfer. Work exchanges with internal energy. Because heat, work, and internal energy are not the same thing, certain processes can affect two variables, effecting a proper energy balance without affecting the third. Adiabatic is where Q is Zero. The equation becomes:

∆U=W

Moving on:
Heat and work exchange when ∆U= zero.

0=Q-W
Or
W=Q

Two cases where that is true are, isothermal process, and a full cycle. For other individual single strokes, ∆U is not zero. If it's not adiabatic, Q will not be zero. And single strokes with a change in volume will have nonzero work output, could be negative.

It's the full cycle that is of Carnot concern. When adding up a full cycle, it is easy to make mistakes, leave something out.

You don't need more math, you need a better understanding of basic thermodynamic concepts.

You don't need more math, you need a better understanding of basic thermodynamic mathematical concepts.

Nicola Tesla was right about a lot of things, however quantum mechanics has proven Tesla and Einstein wrong, it is extremely useful for atomic theory. The atomic bomb was first proven two years after Tesla died. That was about the time the last doubts of Entropy were eliminated, and cemented in the Carnot Theorem. Tesla may not have known.

The important thing in this thread is to understand the difference between Q, ∆U, W, and U and how Q added to U1 produces U2. And how taking W out of ∆U requires Qin and Qout, unless adiabatic, for a full cycle.

Your theory goes against the standard model. Two choices, one a new model needs to form. Or your tests are somehow not working.

If you want someone to agree with your theory, you need to model it. I see no way to model it, and can't help. Further more I see why current theory prohibits it, and it's more than just because it does. Valid logical, mathematical, and empirical, objections arise.