I'd like to recreate Tom's experiment

[Tom Booth]

The so-called "Carnot limit" has to be one of the biggest "scientific" fabrications in all of world history, perpetuated for an entire century.

[Fool]

Perpetual perpetual motion denial.

[Tom Booth]

I did this test last night at 4:00 in the morning, just to get a general idea how long a "running on ice" experiment might take where the ice is NOT insulated from the surrounding ambient heat.

https://youtu.be/YXiCGg2YwuM

I used a whole handful of ice cubes. Two small partial hand fulls actually. At least five ice cubes I think.

The ice all melted in about 45 minutes.

That was way faster than I was expecting.

Previously I had always insulated the ice for such experiments assuming it would melt very quickly without it, making it difficult to get meaningful results.

With insulated ice and a running engine 1 ice cube generally took about 4 and 1/2 hours to melt.

In this test, five ice cubes melted in about 45 minutes.

On a per-cube basis, I figured that is about 25 times faster melting without insulation.

There were a lot of differences. Different type engine, The ice was from a different refrigerator than I had 4 years ago. Different size engine, different container.

Anyway, it seems doing ice melt engine experiments without insulation should go much more quickly, like 10 minutes instead of 5 hours.

[MikeB]

Tom,
Glad to see you are still experimenting - what numbers were you able to measure?

[Tom Booth]

Tom,
Glad to see you are still experimenting - what numbers were you able to measure?

4:30 to 5:16

I think that's 46 minutes, give or take a few seconds, for five or six icecubes to melt.

I assume you watched the video without reading the description or text?

That was not an experiment, just a preliminary test:

"just to get a general idea how long a "running on ice" experiment might take where the ice is NOT insulated from the surrounding ambient heat."

I still have to put the other engine together and probably make regenerators for each.

Anyway, I'm not particularly interested in getting numbers and measurements. I'm looking for clear, unambiguous results.

Like, for example: if an ice cube between two engines never melts until the engines' bearings wear out after six months or however long that might take.

Though, I'm sure, without an accompanying PV diagram that wouldn't mean anything to some people.

[Fool]

Like, for example: if an ice cube between two engines never melts until the engines' bearings wear out after six months or however long that might take.

I'm glad you are still working on it and wish the best. I'm very curious what you'll find either way.

I'm also glad you still have your sense of humor.


.

[Tom Booth]

Like, for example: if an ice cube between two engines never melts until the engines' bearings wear out after six months or however long that might take.

I'm glad you are still working on it and wish the best. I'm very curious what you'll find either way.

I'm also glad you still have your sense of humor.

There wasn't really anything in that post intended to be humorous.

[sarimshaikh]

This is extremely fascinating substance! I have completely delighted in perusing your focuses and have reached the conclusion that you are right about a hefty portion of them. You are extraordinary.  juwa 777 online casino login

[Fool]

n=W/Qh ; Qc=Qh-W not inversely proportional. It just has a negative slope.

Inverse is 1/x. Qc doesn't depend on a function of 1/W for it to be inversely proportional.

Your mathematical abilities are questionable at best.

[Fool]

So yeah, not exactly copying the experiment, but trying to do it in a way that satisfies everyone so the results can be accepted by everyone.

I'm easy to satisfy. All that is needed is good lab practices, write ups, and valid conclusions.

Perhaps just start with satisfying yourself, then work on peers. Good luck. Cary on.

.

[Tom Booth]

n=W/Qh ; Qc=Qh-W not inversely proportional. It just has a negative slope.

Inverse is 1/x. Qc doesn't depend on a function of 1/W for it to be inversely proportional.

Your mathematical abilities are questionable at best.

Qc=Qh-W

Qh is 100% of the heat input, say 100 joules


Qc=Qh-W
100=Qh-W
100=100-W
Therefore when Qc=100 W=0

Likewise, when W=100. Qc=0

And all values in between

When Qc=25, W=75
When W=75, Qc=25

Etc. etc

Whatever the value of Qc, W is inversely proportional, together they must both add up to 100 joules, the total input.

When the value of Qc goes up the value of W goes down and vice versa.

That is called inversely proportional

Not "exactly proportional" as you stated.

I don't know why you constantly want to double down on issues where you are so transparently in error.

Your posts are a waste of time and space and you make arguments just for arguments sake.

Of is it just to spread confusion?

Or maybe you can explain whatever distinction you think there is between "inversely proportional" and having a "negative slope" whatever that's supposed to mean.

And how is either of those things "exactly proportional"

And is "negative slope" the same as "exactly proportional"?

Of are you admitting that your original statement was wrong?

You are 't making any sense.

[Fool]

"Qh is 100% of the heat input, say 100 joules"

How is that measured. Or are you just pulling numbers out of thin air?

Tc being colder than ambient just means it can pull heat out of the internal gas faster. What is the internal gas temperature?

[Tom Booth]

"Qh is 100% of the heat input, say 100 joules"

How is that measured. Or are you just pulling numbers out of thin air?

Tc being colder than ambient just means it can pull heat out of the internal gas faster. What is the internal gas temperature?

Your a f'n moron.

100% is 100%

The cold plate cannot be colder than ambient when it started out at ambient and heat is being transfered to it.

The only way the temperature could be lower than ambient would be because the working fluid is even colder yet.

It's hard for me to imagine how anyone could actually be such a moronic idiot without it being intentional, just for the sake of spreading FUD and general confusion.

Your nothing but a Troll of the worst sort.

[Fool]

"The only way the temperature could be lower than ambient would be because the working fluid is even colder yet."

Are you sure? Did you measure that "colder gas"? Guessing doesn't cut it in science.

[Tom Booth]

"The only way the temperature could be lower than ambient would be because the working fluid is even colder yet."

Are you sure? Did you measure that "colder gas"? Guessing doesn't cut it in science.

I'm not aware of a case of a metal becoming cold "spontaneously" while being heated on both sides.

Measuring a temperature gradient, ambient being warmer than the metal on one side, I think it safe to assume the gradient continues through to the other side.

At any rate, whatever might be causing the cold plate to be below ambient, heat does not travel from colder to warmer.

You would probably do better to argue that the emissivity of the metal was throwing of the readings. That actually makes some sense.

Regardless, there seems to be much less measurable "waste heat" than what the "Carnot limit" predicts, not in one "fluke" experiment, but over and over and over repeatedly, using many different experimental approaches and methods and measuring devices.

Again, if you think this is inadequate or inconclusive, your entitled to your opinions and can feel free to conduct your own experiments.

I'm satisfied enough with the results that I'm moving on.