Heating a gas, then expanding.

[Tom Booth]

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.

MikeB, you introduced this in relation to a heat pump:

Reproducing from above:

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 Refrigerator" or something similar, as it works exactly the same as a domestic fridge - leccy in, heat moved from cold place to warmer place.

If I carry a can of gasoline there are "two inputs of energy" in what seems to me the same sense.

I carry an empty can to the gas station, fill it with gas and take it home then pour it into the gas tank of whatever engine. Car, lawn mower, tractor.

The energy expended by my muscles to lift and transport the FUEL is negligible, You appear to be arguing above that the energy used to transport heat by a heat pump doesn't really count much at all.

So, which is it?

On the one hand the apparent "overunity" of a COP >1 is dismissed as irrelevant. Heat pumps and heat engines are fundamentally different. The 2nd Law and Carnot don't apply, but if we want to use that to our advantage to transport heat to a heat engine all of a sudden you can only get as much energy out of your FUEL as you used to transport it.

That is something I've tried to point out many times.

Heat pumps and heat engines are fundamentally VERY different in principle and result.

One is not the other "running in reverse".

A heat pump merely transports heat/energy from one location where it is useless to us, to another location, where it becomes useful.

A heat ENGINE on the other hand actually consumes the "FUEL" or transforms the energy which moves into its sphere of influence.

Only in the Carnot/caloric theory does a heat engine operate by the mere transfer of energy from one location to another.

We are not lifting our gasoline and pouring it over a water wheel to let it down again.

[Fool]

Heat is not fuel.
Moving heat around is the colloquial term for a cycle that converts work into internal energy at the same time as moving internal energy from lower temperature to internal energy at a higher temperature. Heat doesn't flow that way. Calling it reverse heat flow is misleading.

A Stirling Engine and a Stirling Heat Pump can be the exact same device as proven by the Philips Company Engineers. It is viewable in a YouTube Video.

If you fill you tank with water and pump water into your engines fuel system, you will be spending more energy to pump your water 'fuel' than the energy contained in that 'fuel'. This will be observed by your engine not running.

'Pumping energy' is not negligible. It is typically low enough to be overlooked, 1/2000 of the engine power.

For the Saturn 5 F1 Rockets the fuel pump consumes 55000 horse power or about 40 million Watts. Ivo Kolin.

Heat is nothing. It doesn't exist. It is just a description of internal energy moving from a hot mass into a cooler mass. Never the other way, except in colloquial misleading terms.

[Tom Booth]

...
'Pumping energy' is not negligible. It is typically low enough to be overlooked, 1/2000 of the engine power.

For the Saturn 5 F1 Rockets the fuel pump consumes 55000 horse power ...

Sure, but the Saturn 5 F2 Rocket put out 160 Million horsepower.

That makes the energy consumed by the fuel pump, relatively speaking, "negligible". About 1 HP input to every 2, 900 HP output.

Your incomplete "facts" are misleading and do not really support your argument.

[Fool]

If NASA had neglected to design a 55000 horsepower turbo pump the Saturn 5 would have been a failure.

Even getting into orbit would have been questionable.

Even a diesel injection pump isn't overlooked.

The problem is significant if the design, or amount has significant importance on the success of the project.

Not negligible, just overlooked if 1/2000 is small or easy.

Not always small and easy.

Yes sometimes if working on gravity feed lawnmowers.

[Fool]

Energy moved by a heat pump is way more significant than fuel moved by a fuel pump. As you like to say, apples to oranges.

Can a heat pump be power by a heat engine? Yes. But the heat moved into the engine will be more than the heat moved by the heat pump. 2 law adherence.

Net effect heat will be rejected to the cold side. Adherence to the first law as well.

[Fool]

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

The statement was directed to Goofy. He asked for evidence. His viewpoint is what's in the balance.

Your opinion is noted and dismissed on the fact that both require lack of heat rejected to the cold side. And your lack of evidence that it was operational. Goofy asked for my example, I provided it, many people may accept it. Your denial is just to protect your fragile ego. I don't care. It is facts regardless.

Since neither were operational, both are a failure.

How about an update on your butane refrigerator project? Working, failure, shelved? Lack of evidence is lack of success.

[Tom Booth]

Energy moved by a heat pump is way more significant than fuel moved by a fuel pump. As you like to say, apples to oranges.

A fuel pump MOVES fuel.
An ENGINE burns, consumes, utilizes, destroys, transforms or converts the fuel, it doesn't "move" the fuel, so the fuel no longer exists in the form of fuel.

Likewise, a heat pump moves heat.
A heat engine converts it, so the "heat" no longer exists as that form of energy. The heat is transformed into "work".

The relatively small amount of work that a heat pump converts into heat is minimal compared with the quantity of heat moved from the environment.

Can a heat pump be power by a heat engine? Yes. But the heat moved into the engine will be more than the heat moved by the heat pump. 2 law adherence.

Net effect heat will be rejected to the cold side. Adherence to the first law as well.

I can't really make any sense out of that.

[Tom Booth]

...
How about an update on your butane refrigerator project? Working, failure, shelved? Lack of evidence is lack of success.

I haven't started on that. Frankly, it isn't at the top of my project priorities.

Butane is a viable refrigerant. Very similar Mini-heat pumps are available commercially. There is no question whatsoever that generally, refrigeration works. If I attempt replicating someone else's mini-fridge displayed on YouTube, if mine were to work or not doesn't actually prove anything one way or the other about someone elses success or failure.

Once I saw I could just purchase an off the shelf mini-vapor compression refrigeration system from companies like Aspen or Rigid the question is it possible became rather moot.

At any rate, I have a half dozen or so higher priority projects lined up I haven't had time for, so don't hold your breath.

[Fool]

Okay. Thanks for the update.

[Goofy]

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

"The statement was directed to Goofy. He asked for evidence. His viewpoint is what's in the balance."

- And MY viewpoint is, that your answer is the worst bunch of nonsense I have seen for a long time !

Some kind of "backwards in time" argument ? ? ? A childish reaction . . .

But that just tells me, that I can NOT thrust ANY of Fool´s statements. He just makes his own facts.

I am al so feed up with the Teacher attitude of yours.

You obviously regards others in here, as "student´s" who needs to be taught by The Great Oracle him self.

Have a nice life . . .

[Tom Booth]

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

"The statement was directed to Goofy. He asked for evidence. His viewpoint is what's in the balance."

- And MY viewpoint is, that your answer is the worst bunch of nonsense I have seen for a long time !
...

LOL..

[Tom Booth]

...
Your comment about me driving Goofy out, seems to be baseless, unless you can provide proof. I commented on about two of his posts. In both I was either thankful, playfully complementary (calling him Brilliant Right) or both.
...

I've been seriously looking for a new forum myself. Aside from the nearly intolerable presence of "fool" and other "trolls" now going completely unchecked, the forum has more advertising spam than actual new posts lately, going back several months. The annoyingly brief edit window, no media capability. Sad.

[Fool]

You sure can't tolerate simple mathematical truths. Let us know where you end up we'll be sure to visit there too.

Goofy, I mean no disrespect but I've provided links, mathematics, logic, possible experiments, and now all you provide is insults. Hmmm

I'm sorry I'm so childish and untrustable. I just bring information from others.

[Tom Booth]

You sure can't tolerate simple mathematical truths. Let us know where you end up we'll be sure to visit there too.

No doubt.

Goofy, I mean no disrespect but I've provided links, mathematics, logic, possible experiments, and now all you provide is insults. Hmmm

You've provided crap; your own worthless opinions.

I suppose solar dish Stirling engines (Infinia, Stirling Technologies etc.) never worked either?

Like the other technologies, suppressed by the "powers that be".

The technologies work and are being used, but You (We little people) just aren't allowed to have it.

But there it is, behind a guarded gate in a restricted area supplying the power to a US Army facility:

Resize_20240315_223216_6381.jpg (486.41 KiB) Viewed 4823 times

https://youtu.be/7gesT0fBB5E

[MikeB]

The relatively small amount of work that a heat pump converts into heat is minimal compared with the quantity of heat moved from the environment.

From what I've seen, current commercial heat pumps use a _lot_ of energy to pump a useful amount of heat - that's why the Government here is having to try to bully people into using them in preference to burning natural gas, as they cost only slightly less to run. And a shed-load more to buy and install.