Could Both Carnot and Tom be Correct?

[matt brown]

...

Adiabatic temperature drop from work.during expansion, becomes adiabatic temperature increase during the return stroke And uses the same amount of work to accomplish the compression.

Only heat rejection will reduce the work requirement for the return stroke below the power stroke.

Sorry, but you are an idiot, don't know basic science or understand conservation of energy or the meaning of basic thermodynamic terminology

No Tom, you're the idiot that doesn't know basic science.

"Adiabatic" only means there is no heat transfer. Cooling during adiabatic expansion can be the result of both the expansion work itself AND additionally any work the engine is performing; turning the crankshaft, overcoming friction and driving any additional load

All of those work outputs result in additional cooling above and beyond the minimal cooling from gas expansion with zero load, no friction of atmospheric pressure or other resistance.

Why must you continually jack up even simple stuff ???

There's this thing called the heat capacity of a gas which you obviously don't grasp. The adiabatic work doesn't care where it goes, but any work 'subdivisions' can only equal the total work of the gas process.

And in particular "Only heat rejection will reduce the work requirement for the return stroke below the power stroke." Is total BS

You are either ignorant or a liar.

Tom, you need a new hobby, Fool has it right.

[Fool]

Cooling during adiabatic expansion can be the result of both the expansion work itself AND additionally any work the engine is performing; turning the crankshaft, overcoming friction and driving any additional load

The work of expansion is the maximum work the gas will do. The work load comes from that work. It is not additive. Load can increase the work of expansion by slowing the engine, thus increasing heat absorption.

Adding a load does not increase the temperature drop during expansion. How could it? The expansion is the same regardless of wether the work goes into the load or the bearings, windage, and PV atmosphere. RPM is what counts.

[Tom Booth]

...

Adiabatic temperature drop from work.during expansion, becomes adiabatic temperature increase during the return stroke And uses the same amount of work to accomplish the compression.

Only heat rejection will reduce the work requirement for the return stroke below the power stroke.

Sorry, but you are an idiot, don't know basic science or understand conservation of energy or the meaning of basic thermodynamic terminology

No Tom, you're the idiot that doesn't know basic science.

"Adiabatic" only means there is no heat transfer. Cooling during adiabatic expansion can be the result of both the expansion work itself AND additionally any work the engine is performing; turning the crankshaft, overcoming friction and driving any additional load

All of those work outputs result in additional cooling above and beyond the minimal cooling from gas expansion with zero load, no friction of atmospheric pressure or other resistance.

Why must you continually jack up even simple stuff ???

There's this thing called the heat capacity of a gas which you obviously don't grasp. The adiabatic work doesn't care where it goes, but any work 'subdivisions' can only equal the total work of the gas process.

And in particular "Only heat rejection will reduce the work requirement for the return stroke below the power stroke." Is total BS

You are either ignorant or a liar.

Tom, you need a new hobby, Fool has it right.

No, your just backing up his lies a you always do.

[Tom Booth]

Cooling during adiabatic expansion can be the result of both the expansion work itself AND additionally any work the engine is performing; turning the crankshaft, overcoming friction and driving any additional load

The work of expansion is the maximum work the gas will do. The work load comes from that work. It is not additive. Load can increase the work of expansion by slowing the engine, thus increasing heat absorption.

Adding a load does not increase the temperature drop during expansion. How could it? The expansion is the same regardless of wether the work goes into the load or the bearings, windage, and PV atmosphere. RPM is what counts.

Your an ignoramus.

Expansion work is commonly used to cool the working fluid FAR below ambient for the purposes of gas liquefaction and cryogenic refrigeration.

There is no reason the same principles used for those ends do not also apply to expansion work performed in a Stirling engine

Several of my experiments, infact, have indicated below ambient cooling of the working fluid, even with minimal work output.

[Fool]

I tried to explain that in this thread. Now I'm just going to ask you for verification of this by use of a PV diagram.

[Tom Booth]

I tried to explain that in this thread. Now I'm just going to ask you for verification of this by use of a PV diagram.

Your "explanations" that the waste heat is somehow going somewhere other than the cold "sink" is just ludicrous diversionary nonsense.

A fucking diagram does not "verify" direct experimental measurements.

A diagram is an "idealized" theoretical model at best

Experiment is the hard reality.

Heat is being rejected in a nonmagical but different way than through the cold plate.

Dream on

[Fool]

An indicator diagram. Measured PV Diagram.

[Tom Booth]

An indicator diagram. Measured PV Diagram.

Sorry but I don't happen to have an indicator diagram apparatus that fits a model LTD in my pocket, and even if I did it would not measure the non-existent "waste heat".

If you think that would be worthwhile, great, build an engine or buy one or whatever and do your own experiments, as I've told you a dozen times.

I could care less what YOU think is supposedly necessary or important. Your a moron.

[Fool]

It's just a pressure gauge and a recorder, compared with a, crank position sensor and recorder. Arduino. Good luck living in your lack of data.

Why should I provide you with data. I'm not the one trying to understand how these engines work. Sorry if they work differently than you wish them to run. It's all just constructive suggestions. Without any attitude.

[Tom Booth]

....

Why should I provide you with data.

Nobody's asking you for anything, other than to please go away.

I'm not the one trying to understand how these engines work.

Obviously not.

Sorry if they work differently than you wish them to run.

I don't "wish them" to run, one way or another. Just doing some common sense experiments to reveal how they do actually run.

Sorry if that turns out to be different from what your pea size brain imagined

It's all just constructive suggestions. Without any attitude.

Hardly

Nothing but relentless harassment, fear mongering, intentional repeated lies and unending efforts to derail, discredit and defame. Some low life paid shill or a preprogrammed bot working without pay more like it

Real people are capable of learning and growing and considering new ideas and evidence. You just keep repeating the same ridiculous talking points, regardless of how many times your caught lying. Or how many times your proven wrong. Typical chat bot behavior. Incapable of actual thinking and reasoning.

That's probably the real reason you aren't following me to the "free energy" website.

Your IP address would reveal your true identity:

https://www.cimtools.net/en/extra/bots_ ... php?id=587

[Fool]

I guess Tom concedes being the one in error. What a disappointment. Attacking a poster instead of the science.

When you finally figure out why you are in error, by failure to build your Tesla cold hole and agree to be civil, I will be expecting a very deserved apology for being so mean.

As of now all I expect is your ignorance as you constantly boil down your posting to fraudulent insults about science, education, obvious data, and intelligent posters. Your logic is flawed. Your understanding is absent. You have spent over a decade and still don't understand these engines. Your constructions are so subpar they are practically non-existent. You can't even put together a simple indicator diagram tool, or a torque measurement instrument. Good luck trying to build a simple refrigerator. Let alone, a Tesla cold hole combination and test it properly. Shunning any input from engineers will in.addition make your projects and construction way more difficult. All I can do is wish you well and far away from us.

An entire thread attempting to clarify why his experiments were correct and all he provides is insults. Someone should tell him to grow up. To find your problems just look in a mirror.

All we are seeing from you is wild juvenile ideas and insulting baby talk. Zero potential help. Thanks but no thanks for your effort here. Maybe next life you will get a clue.

I will stick to my equations and numbers that accurately predict bridge strengths, aerodynamics, cylinder strengths, power outputs, ohms volts Amps, etc... From your refusal to learn any science, you probably will stick to your guessing and denial of failure process. Tesla failed to finish his cold hole dream, and live the rest of his life in that denial. Sort of puts you into perspective.

Your fraudulent ideas belong in the free energy comedy site. Did you just invite me there? Willing to have classical science injected there? Hope you have a lot of fun there lying to each other about dreams of powering things from magical, ignore science, energy sources and devices. When you ultimately fail and figure out why, and that science knew it all along, you probably will deny that too.

You would go a long way if you'd just get more data as suggested. You are just fearing failure, a very non scientific attitude. Science is all about failure, and success too. Testing, refutation, verification and testing again from a different viewpoint. And kindly peer review. You failed the 'kindly' part.

I don't expect you to learn. It is obvious you can't tell a bot from a human so it's not likely you will be able to discern the difference between science and lies. I sure can.

Hint, it's never about insults.


.

[VincentG]

Yes Tom and Carnot can both be correct.

If Carnot had access to a Stirling cryocooler he likely would have update his work to reflect his new discovery, and Tom would never have had to take interest in the matter at all.

If Tom tries and fails to build a self cooling machine he might think it impossible, while it could be possible all along.

Isn't that why we're on this forum.

Both of you should take a chill pill.

[Tom Booth]

Yes Tom and Carnot can both be correct.
...

Historically, the so-called "Carnot Limit" did not originate with Carnot.

The whole thing is a total fabrication by who knows who.

Some vague connection with Clausius perhaps. Based as it is on the Kelvin scale could not have been earlier.

I'm quite sure Carnot himself would reject it as preposterous and disavow any association or responsibility.

Fool, you can develop theories and make predictions based on modeling and mathematic calculations, but the ultimate acid test is experiment. If your theories, and mathematical "proofs" don't hold up experimentally it's your math and your modeling that's in error, not the observable, physical results.

You can stick with your hypothetical so-called bogus "Carnot" but not Carnot so-called temperature difference so-called nothing "efficiency formula".

Real science is based on observation and experiment, not mathematical guesswork

Unfortunately the so-called "Carnot Limit" theory managed to bypass legitimate scientific screening by modern standards.

It has zero legitimacy in my book. Ultimately if fails the acid test.

[VincentG]

This is worth a listen.

https://www.youtube.com/live/ocOHxPs1LQ ... NWUNedULAM

[Tom Booth]

...

If Tom tries and fails to build a self cooling machine he might think it impossible, while it could be possible all along.

...

What nobody seems to understand is I'm not trying to build anything.

My experiments appear to demonstrate that a typical Stirling engine is already "a self cooling machine".

Heat goes in at T-hot and the engine cools that down to T-cold by converting the heat input into work output, or even a little more so, to BELOW T-cold.

The main problem appears to be the engine only covers one side of the "cold hole".

The other five sides are heated by the ambient surroundings. So the real problem may be ONLY a lack of effective insulation.

My two engines running "back to back" should reveal if that theory is correct or not.

What I can't stand about"fool" and/or often Matt, and a few others is that clear experimental data is dismissed offhand and ridiculed as supposedly meaningless

If my infrared readings had a margin of error of say 80% they still invalidate the supposed "Carnot Limit".

There is no explanation for a temperature drop below ambient within the Carnot limit framework. His dismissals are simply pea brained narrow-mindedness.