I'd like to recreate Tom's experiment

[Fool]

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

Measuring the inside and outside with calibrated equipment would verify that. Without that verification you are just guessing and have zero conclusive evidence. Nothing but a mystery.

I only care enough to point out your mistakes, not to do your experiment for you.

.

[Tom Booth]

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

Measuring the inside and outside with calibrated equipment would verify that. Without that verification you are just guessing and have zero conclusive evidence. Nothing but a mystery.

I only care enough to point out your mistakes, not to do your experiment for you.

.

I'm not asking you to do any experiments for me, obviously.

I don't care about your opinions regarding my experiments.

They are what they are, related as-is for whomever might be interested.

Your moronic opinions are just that. Clueless. Until you do any experiments and get contradictory results and see for yourself, you have no business talking IMO.

I have first hand experience, taking measurements, observing, touching the engine to feel the heat or cold as the case may be. That has been convincing enough for me.

If it isn't for you, do your own experiments and shut the hell up. Ass hole.

[Fool]

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 not asking you to do any experiments for me, obviously."

I'm going to say it again:

"Take so-called "entropy".

I read over and over that you cannot have a decrease in entropy without an entropy increase "somewhere else in the universe".

That is absolutely "unfalsifiable", unscientific, and in no way subject to any kind of experimental validation.

Total nonsensical crap."

To say that, with your I'll conceived fumbling, is a lie. And it is bashing. You will have great troubles convincing anyone. I've been patient and tried many ways to wise you up, but you continue to draw erroneous conclusions from inconclusive experiences. You have an unexpected temperature, nothing more, if that at all.

For example:

"I have first hand experience, taking measurements, observing, touching the engine to feel the heat or cold as the case may be. That has been convincing enough for me."

But you refuse simple measurements that would greatly enlighten you. Why?

Because you refuse to look in a mirror.

I don't care if you are skeptical, and refuse to use the theory. That is your mistake. Your mistake, you must solve it. I was nice enough to point it out. And try to explain why. Telling me to shut up is pointless. Disliking what I say is pointless. Refusing to learn is pointless. Refusing to retest is useless. I understand how difficult it is to do good lab work so don't fault you for not wanting to. I fault you for bashing,ashing out and ignorance.

"If it isn't for you, do your own experiments and shut the hell up. Ass hole."[/Quite]

Grow up. You are an amateur at cursing.

[Fool]

The way you are lashing out, is leading me to think your results are less than trustworthy. I'm trying to work with you here. Your fear is stopping your understanding.

Zero work out zero heat in zero heat out. Single temperature measurements are none of those, as you've said many times before.

"Qh does not equal Th", true.

(Qh+Qc)/Qh does equal (Th-Tc)/Th . Ratios allow differences to cancel, specifically the link between heat and temperature differences.

[Tom Booth]

..
But you refuse simple measurements that would greatly enlighten you. Why? ...Refusing to retest is useles...
...

That is simply lies.

I've used every type of temperature measuring device there is. Infrared, thermocouples, direct touch impressions. But sometimes actually feeling cold metal on an engine running on scalding hot water, the bottom of the engine too hot to touch is more convincing than any thermocouple readings.

I've repeated or "retested" these experiments over and over, until the engines themselves have work out

If upon repetition I ever had any results that contradicted what's already posted in videos on YouTube I'd post an update

But I do experiments based on my own interest and what seems most likely to be productive of some new information.

Endlessly redoing experiments trying to produce results agreeable with some pestering moron on a message board appropriately calling himself "fool" is not what motivates my research.

I don't care about "convincing anyone" of anything least of all some internet stalker psychopath liar with a screw loose.

[Tom Booth]

Just FYI for whomever might be interested, the next experiment I have in mind is the duel engines with regenerators, running cold side to cold side.

That virtually eliminates the insulation wildcard.

If there is really a below ambient, or below T-cold refrigerating effect, then the two engines should keep each other's cold sides cold.

That to me is meaningful progress that could yield new information, as well as simply being interesting.

Catering to ass holes who don't like the results or my past experiments is a waste of time money and energy.

[Fool]

"I don't care about "convincing anyone" of anything least of all some internet stalker psychopath liar with a screw loose."

You obviously don't care to learn beyond your own narrow-mindedness. Perhaps one day you will expand beyond temperature measurements, and try for torque, pressure, crank position, and RPM


"That virtually eliminates the insulation wildcard."

How are you ensuring no conduction from the edges?


"Catering to ass holes who don't like the results or my past experiments is a waste of time money and energy."

If you like your results so much why do you lash out so harshly. You appear to be catering to no one but yourself.

Ignorance is bliss, but it's just plain stupid. Too bad everyone is an ignoramus by choice. Good luck ignoring what your peers tell you, after asking, daring, begging them to comment in several different forums many of which you were banned for being abrasive.

[Tom Booth]

... Good luck ignoring what your peers tell you, after asking, daring, begging them to comment in several different forums many of which you were banned for being abrasive.

My interest in hearing what the idiots on various so-called "science" forums ended when I was banned for practicing actual science by doing actual experiments.

Asking for comments on forum "A" is not an invitation for neverending stalking and harassment by gibbering morons such as yourself on forums B, C and D.

[Fool]

Tom, your bashing and erroneous banter are invitation enough.

[Fool]

I'm only on two forums. I started here, and you alerted me to the second. I took that as an invitation. And I've only commented in one thread there. Hardly stocking. Yes you are lying about that too.

Perhaps one day you will lean to keep your lamenting to yourself. And stop blaming others for your ignorance, forgetfulness, paranoia, and general abrasive attitude, that gets you banned.

Go back and read those threads and see how much science you use, and how much you ignore, and how much erroneous opinion about unsupported conclusions you use.

.

[Fool]

By the way, were you banned from that forum, or just choosing uncharacteristically not to respond?

.

[Tom Booth]

By the way, were you banned from that forum, or just choosing uncharacteristically not to respond?

.

You need to be more specific. What's "that forum"?

It seems the idea of actually conducting experiments drives you berserk. What are you so afraid of?

I have no investment in your anti-science house of cards, so I don't mind forging ahead to test theories through experiment.

You seem to prefer relying exclusively on abstract mathematics and charts and graphs that have no correspondence to reality.

I'm interested in building engines that actually perform some useful function not "Carnot engines" and "ideal" cycles and diagrams that are not useful for more than idle philosophy and mysticism.

[Fool]

Since you've been banned so often recently and can't keep track of them, it's the following one, and the only other forum I'm writing to. It's:

www.sciforums.com

"It seems the idea of actually conducting experiments drives you berserk. What are you so afraid of?"

I've got no idea why you would trump up such an obvious lie. I keep encouraging you to do experiments. I've given you kudos for attempting those you have done. I've given out kudos for discovering a temperature anomaly. I have no stake in any outcomes of any experiments. Complete scientific anonymity.

Why are you so insistent in making the fraudulent conclusion that the second law is wrong, even after your flaws have been shown so conclusively? You use it mathematically incorrect. You described it incorrectly. After that you resort to name calling, bashing. Again, why?

You have not produced more power output than it predicts. Not even close, in fact zero.

I only complain about your denial, bashing, and banter. The fact that you've devolved into insults is absolute proof that you are wrong and have no better defense.

Hint: Profanity is negative defense.

I only respectfully request respect from you. Is that possible? At least the same respect I give to everyone, even you. Patience and careful explanations.

[Tom Booth]

The way you are lashing out, is leading me to think your results are less than trustworthy. I'm trying to work with you here. Your fear is stopping your understanding.

Zero work out zero heat in zero heat out. Single temperature measurements are none of those, as you've said many times before.

"Qh does not equal Th", true.

(Qh+Qc)/Qh does equal (Th-Tc)/Th . Ratios allow differences to cancel, specifically the link between heat and temperature differences.

Temperature in relation to heat is like volts in relation to electricity.

To determine an amount of electricity you need volts plus amps.

Temperature and joules are no more fixed by a ratio than volts and amps.

A temperature difference is akin to voltage. It does not limit the quantity of Joules or determine how efficiently thermal energy is utilized. You can have a large quantity of joules at a low temperature or a small quantity at a high temperature. Like you need amps X volts to determine Watts, you need joules x temperature to calculate a quantity of "heat" or thermal energy and neither of those determine the draw or load or the actual efficiency.

The Carnot limit equation is at best half the equation, and then it only determines availability. Like having a 100 amp electrical service. That says nothing whatsoever about the actual load or efficiency of motors or appliances.

At best it represents a supply limit not an efficiency limit.

T-hot is like the maximum available voltage. It says nothing whatsoever about quantity of joules or efficiency of a heat engine.

[Fool]

For an electric motor connected to a power line:

Vin = Power line voltage.
A = Current through the motor.
R = Resistance of the motor windings.
Vloss = Voltage loss from the resistance.

The power in 'Pin' :
Pin = Vin•A

The power out 'Pout' :
Pout = Pin - Ploss

Power loss from winding resistance 'Ploss' :
Ploss = R•A^2

Efficient of the motor 'n' :
n = (Pout)/Pin

Substituting in Pout :
n = (Pin - Ploss) / (Pin)

Substituting in Pin and Ploss:
n = (Vin•A - R•A^2)/(Vin•A)

Dividing top and bottom be 'A':
n=(Vin - R•A) / Vin

R•A = Vloss , substituting into the last equation:

n = (Vin - Vloss) / Vin

Does that look familiar? How about if Vin becomes Vh, and Vloss becomes (V zero minus Vc). V zero is zero so:

n = (Vh-Vc)/Vh

The Carnot Theorem even applies to electric motors. Granted R is very low, so Vc will be close to absolute zero, unlike for heat engines running on Earth, where Tc is 300 K.