Heating a gas, then expanding.

[Goofy]

@Fool
"it by itself, is not "wrong" to call ambient energy free energy"

Nice ! An answer at least. So perhaps YOU have misunderstood and biased other people without reason ?

" Tesla's "cold hole" theory has been physically tried, resulting in failures."

I am still waiting for documentation for your Postulate ? ?

"I have read that PDF on Tesla's article."

If you REALLY have read Tesla´s book, you wont ask this question :

"You haven't provided enough information. Who is he, what is his analog? Can you please supply a quote? Thermal piles are limited by the same efficiencies as all heat engines. They will not break, and have not broken, the classic theories."

"It is wrong of Tesla to think he can convert ambient energy to useful work using a self built cold hole and get more work back out than he used to make the cold hole"

But where does he states this ?

Please again provide us humble student´s with some source data !

Btw. in his, (Tesla) let´s call it "heat as fluid" analog, he points out :

"But evidently there will be less to pump out than flows in, or, in other words, less energy will be needed to maintain
the initial condition than is developed by the fall, and this is to say that some energy will be gained from the medium."

So, if you invest some energy in a process, it IS possible to get more back, than you invested.

Fool say´s this can´t be, because will you break both 0, 1´ & 2´ Law + Carnot.

But this is what my Heat-pump does all the time. 1 kw input becomes 5 kw output.

You can call it COP, or whatever you want, but the energy IS gained from the medium.

- And that´s what Tesla is talking about. He, of cause knows, that there is no free meals in the energy equation,
but he realizes that it is possible to get more out, than you put in, with a little help from the ambient air.

So I will make the conclusion, that : Fool have not read THE PROBLEM OF INCEEASING HUMAN ENERGY. He only postulate this.

- But it is lees than 40 pages . . .

Thanks for 1 answer, but a lot is still missing upstream the thread.

BR

[Tom Booth]

...
It is odd how all those machines, claiming over unity, 100 + years ago, all stopped working about 100 years ago. ...

Gorrie invented mechanical refrigeration. The basis of heat pumps, air conditioners, freezers, ice makers, water coolers, we have today.

His original machine was in some ways crude, but in other ways clever and more effective. At any rate, refrigeration has not stopped working.

In 1991:

Current nationwide U.S. data indicate that the typical new "top freezer, automatic defrost" residential refrigerator uses approximately 1000 kWh per year and discharges approximately 8 million Btu's per year into its surroundings, about 60% of the typical annual water heating requirement

https://patents.google.com/patent/US5220807A/en

How many KWh is 8 million Btu's ?

Seems like that could be more out than in.

Gorrie had devised a clever way to reclaim this "waste heat" and use it to help run his ice making machine.

What happened to Gorrie's invention? Why wasn't it improved upon? Why do all household refrigerator freezers today throw away this 8 million Btu's rather than use it to run themselves?

A "conspiracy theorist" might ask, why is the refrigeration industry so closely regulated? Why have all the best, most useful refrigerants been banned worldwide?

Anyway, Gorrie used AIR as a refrigerant. And cold water.

Where did he get the cold water?

Like many of these old inventions, he probably originally got the cold water "for free" from a nearby stream, river or lake or maybe the ocean. He was in Florida, a peninsula surrounded by ocean.

Tripler also apparently used cold river water to pre-cool the air being fed into his liquid air machine.

I'm guessing a lot of these "overunity" cold running "perpetual" machines were just utilizing "free refrigeration" from nature in the form of cold river water. I think Tripler's liquid air plant was in NY on one of the rivers.

What about Scott Robertson's "free range air cars".

Robertson gathered many accounts of inventors with cars that ran on compressed air that somehow refilled their own air tanks with compressed air as they drove all over the countryside.

They couldn't be cooled by a river.

Most refrigerators today just use passive convection to cool the condenser coils.

An air car tooling down the highway has plenty of moving air, or rather, is itself moving through the air much more effective than my passively cooled refrigerator with condenser coils against the wall, covered with dust.

Did these inventions all just "stop working"?

I don't think so.

In many cases, reportedly, the inventors of these machines "stopped working".

Both Gorrie and Tripler had their reputations and lives ruined by no doubt, well meaning "fools". "Scientists" who carefully explained to the general public in the press why their inventions were "impossible" and why they were in actuality con men trying to cheat them out or their investment.

Then their inventions are stolen.

Jeff Muller it looks like, is a fairly recent modern day example.

https://youtu.be/j301aDC2PdQ

This guy was thrown in prison. His company seized and now, apparently, at least one of his inventions is being used to reduce viscosity on oil pipelines (instead of the gas in your carburator to boost mileage

).

https://youtu.be/rB0VGEV9KSs

OK, so this "con artist" was thrown in jail, and his company taken over, because, presumably, his "fuel air saver" didn't work.

But kind of like the Infinia Stirling engines that didn't work. They are it seems, being used today on oil and gas pipelines.

I guess I'm lucky I haven't actually invented anything new so far. Just doing a few simple experiments with toy Stirling engines. Yet how strenuously these "Carnot Limit" advocating "fools" are flocking to this obscure little Stirling engine forum to spend all this time and energy on trying to debunk my supposedly inconsequential experiments.

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLp ... Q9pQZzY7Eu

Our educational system is largely controlled by big energy interests.

Many top universities even supply oil company representatives with their own office on campus and have them teaching courses to engineering students.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... e-academia

Just one article cracking open that can of worms. No wonder there is so much push to perpetuate the obsolete "Carnot Limit".

It's unbelievable nonsense, but just remember; "what's good for Standard Oil is good for America".

Just to be clear, I don't personally have anything against Oil. But these "fools" seem to have something against me.

[Tom Booth]

Funny how this guy thought "they" were out to get him.

https://youtu.be/Haw9l0Z0iWY

Objectively speaking, he was put in prison. His company assets seized. His inventions confiscated. Looks like to me, they got him alright.

A garage inventor converted a Briggs and Stratton engine into a "perpetual" air compressor.

A con man?

Maybe. I don't know. Whatever the case he felt the full burnt of the "establishment" machine, that crushed him like a bug.

[Jack]

A quote from Tesla from "the electric experimenter"

My alternating system of power transmission came at a psychological moment, as a long-sought answer to pressing industrial questions, and altho considerable resistance had to be overcome and opposing interests reconciled, as usual, the commercial introduction could not be long delayed. Now, compare this situation with that confronting my turbine, for example. One should think that so simple and beautiful an invention, possessing many features of an ideal motor, should be adopted at once and, undoubtedly, it would under similar conditions. But the prospective effect of the rotating field was not to render worthless existing machinery; on the contrary, it was to give it additional value. The system lent itself to new enterprise as well as to improvement of the old. My turbine is an advance of a character entirely different. It is a radical departure in the sense that its success would mean the abandonment of the antiquated types of prime movers on which billions of dollars have been spent. Under such circumstances the progress must needs be slow and perhaps the greatest impediment is encountered in the prejudicial opinions created in the minds of experts by organized opposition.

[Goofy]

I think you are spot on, Jack !

The human mind follows Lenz´s law. It will resist a change and create a force in the opposite direction . . .

Fool is a good example of this ;-)

But I am still waiting for answers from him ? ? ?

[Fool]

Nice ! An answer at least. So perhaps YOU have misunderstood and biased other people without reason ?

I understand people's intentions well enough. The problem is misunderstanding the second law. Most students struggle with it out of disbelief. As I have. It's about the ability to convert it to a useful form, not what it is called.

" Tesla's "cold hole" theory has been physically tried, resulting in failures."

I am still waiting for documentation for your Postulate ? ?

Here is a few sites on the failed "Zeromotor":

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ga ... 0Zeromoter.

Gamgee later became involved promoting refrigeration technology. He developed what was purported to be a perpetual motion machine known as the Zeromoter. The Zeromoter was intended to use ammonia within a refrigeration system to power ships. The technology gained the support of US President James Garfield, before being debunked.[10]

https://hughjyeman.wordpress.com/2016/0 ... -the-news/

the writer was referencing a well-known contemporary engineering folly: Gamgee’s “Zero motor”. Since then, I’ve found several newspaper articles from 1881 that show how famous, and infamous, Gamgee’s contraption had become.

This motor was attempted in 1881. That is before Tesla"s paper on cold holes. Hence Tesla should have known of it's failure.

https://onlineme.engr.utexas.edu/perpet ... gineering/

The Zeromotor

Another type of perpetual motion machine was proposed by British veterinarian and inventor John Gamgee in the 1880s. He proposed a steam train powered by perpetual motion that would replace water with ammonia, which has a lower boiling point and would evaporate without the need to boil water. The expanding ammonia gas would drive a piston, power the engine, and condense into a liquid, spurring the process to begin again. Gamgee’s invention, which he dubbed a zeromotor, was so promising that it caught the attention of the Navy’s chief engineer, B.F. Isherwood, who couldn’t resist the prospect of powering naval vessels with free energy. Unfortunately for Gamgee and the U.S. Navy, the zeromotor was a sputtering failure not because it violated the first law of thermodynamics, but because it violated the second.

Okay, that is one failure. For number two, I present Tesla's motor. Claim of a partial working machine is not the full machine nor data. It is just a claim. Burning his lab down to hide his failure is insufficient evidence, IMHO, to classify it as any kind of success.

Two is sufficient for my donated effort here. It is now your effort to produce a working model, or failure, to donate your effort to this repository of knowledge. Please.

But where does he states this ?

Why must a fraudster mention opposing statements to his fraud? He wouldn't. You won't find out why Tesla was wrong by reading Tesla's pre-second-law words.

But this is what my Heat-pump does all the time. 1 kw input becomes 5 kw output.

Yes, and your engine running on that temperature difference will get 0.05 or 5% . And an ideal heat pump producing that temperature difference should get a COP of 10 or more, ideally. This is all standard engineering numbers. Your heat pump is only 50% efficient.

You can call it COP, or whatever you want, but the energy IS gained from the medium.

No, it is only moved, no 'gain'. This is a common misunderstanding by first year students. 5 kw of energy are put in, so that 5 kw can come out onto the hot side. 1 kw of work, and 4 kw of heat. Look for the conservation of energy, first law, for the balance of power.

And that´s what Tesla is talking about. He, of cause knows, that there is no free meals in the energy equation,
but he realizes that it is possible to get more out, than you put in, with a little help from the ambient air.

Short answer Tesla is wrong. He made his statement before the second law was solidified in the 1940's and 50's, and before it was routinely taught starting in the 50's and 60's. This is not brain washing. Professors routinely challenge students to check it for themselves.

Long answer, heat engines run in a full cycle by increasing the energy in the system for the power stroke, then decreasing the energy in the system for the return stroke. This is done by adding heat, and then removing less heat, for a net work output of Qh-Qc. This has not been observed in Tom's experiment for unknown reasons. There is a temperature anomaly, not because heat isn't being removed to the ambient air. The laws of nature require it.

Just to be clear, I don't personally have anything against Oil. But these "fools" seem to have something against me.

I've got nothing against you. I would love for one of those mentioned engines to be true and the oil companies to be shut down.

Let me ask you this, what would you like to see happen to a person, or company, commiting fraud? All those people and their magical schemes to provide endless perpetual motion free energy, are fooling you, and commiting fraud, and perhaps fooling themselves. Most likely they already know of their failures.

Your effort here should be to either, prove them correct by producing a working model, or report on your failure to do so. Claiming others have done so, may just be supporting their fraud. Success will support their tails of whoa.

Tell me how you plan to use a LTD Stirling engine that produces 0.010 Watts to power a cooler that takes 10 W, 50 W, 90 W, or more Watts to barely provide the temperature difference needed to get that engine to make 1/100th Watt and get any 'free' output energy. Just the off the shelf components you plan to combine produce an energy waster.

Don't take my word for it. Build one and see. Sounds like you have all the components already. You could report on adding up the values of equipment you have, before building it.

By the way, any luck getting that butane refrigerator to cool any? You've kind of gone silent on reporting that project. Working, failed, or on back burner so to speak? Good luck. Cary on.

Please find something to help close down all the fuel oil companies. Perhaps solar voltaic panels and electric cars will do the trick? Maybe in combination with sand batteries for homes?

[MikeB]

So, if you invest some energy in a process, it IS possible to get more back, than you invested.

Fool say´s this can´t be, because will you break both 0, 1´ & 2´ Law + Carnot.

But this is what my Heat-pump does all the time. 1 kw input becomes 5 kw output.

I think this was answered several posts earlier, but the point is that a heat-pump has TWO inputs of energy, one electrical, the other ambient air or ground (depending which kind it is.)
That is why it is called a pump, and not a heater, though it should really be called an "External Refridgerator" or something similar, as it works exactly the same as a domestic fridge - leccy in, heat moved from cold place to warmer place.

[Tom Booth]

...

" Tesla's "cold hole" theory has been physically tried, resulting in failures."

I am still waiting for documentation for your Postulate ? ?

Here is a few sites on the failed "Zeromotor":
...

Tesla's ambient heat engine and Gamgee's Ammonia engine are not really the same thing. Nevertheless, IMO there is overwhelming evidence that the Zeromotor was real. That it actually worked appears to have been thoroughly verified and documented.

[Tom Booth]

...
Okay, that is one failure. For number two, I present Tesla's motor. Claim of a partial working machine is not the full machine nor data. It is just a claim. Burning his lab down to hide his failure is insufficient evidence, IMHO, to classify it as any kind of success.

Two is sufficient for my donated effort here. ...

Your statement was: "Tesla's "cold hole" theory has been physically tried, resulting in failures."

This is why there is no point in debating anything with "fool". He constantly makes up these bold faced lies, detailing "facts" that have no basis in reality.

For it to be based on "Tesla's 'cold hole' theory" the trial would logically have to have been after not before Tesla detailed his theory.

Also, most people, I think, would not count or consider Tesla himself as a trier of his own theory

As usual, when caught in a lie you just side step the issue with more lies and twisting of facts.

[Tom Booth]

So, if you invest some energy in a process, it IS possible to get more back, than you invested.

Fool say´s this can´t be, because will you break both 0, 1´ & 2´ Law + Carnot.

But this is what my Heat-pump does all the time. 1 kw input becomes 5 kw output.

I think this was answered several posts earlier, but the point is that a heat-pump has TWO inputs of energy, one electrical, the other ambient air or ground (depending which kind it is.)
That is why it is called a pump, and not a heater, though it should really be called an "External Refridgerator" or something similar, as it works exactly the same as a domestic fridge - leccy in, heat moved from cold place to warmer place.

...heat moved from cold place to warmer place.

Right. Heat can be moved with relatively little energy input

Heat is fuel for a heat engine.

So a heat pump operated by a heat engine is different from a fuel pump operated by a gasoline engine how?

[Jack]

This is what I'm wondering.
The amount of energy it takes to move/pump a fluid barely has any link to the amount of stored energy in that fluid.
Is that a safe assumption?

[MikeB]

This is what I'm wondering.
The amount of energy it takes to move/pump a fluid barely has any link to the amount of stored energy in that fluid.
Is that a safe assumption?

Are you trying to suggest that we can treat heat as being a fluid ??

[Jack]

No I'm saying heat can be carried by a fluid.

[Jack]

Like with the gasoline pump analogy. The amount of energy it costs to pump that around barely has any relation to the amount of energy really in there.

[MikeB]

No I'm saying heat can be carried by a fluid.

That, as far as I know, is a pre-requisite for any heat-engine, but otherwise I'm not sure what the relevance is?

And to expand that slightly - for any engine/motor (whether it be electric; a waterwheel; or steam) the most basic pre-requisite is a transfer of energy from high potential to a lower potential.