Sippy Bird Experiments.

[Tom Booth]

What matters is that it IS. generated by the engine itself, or by its own action. A so-called "Self-Acting Engine" that requires no fuel other than the surrounding ambient heat

It won't work from heat alone. It must also have low humidity.

I just said: "in an appropriate climate". As usual, you seem to have reading comprehension issues.

So you don't think it will work from the heat of a lightbulb and dry head.

Of course it can. Moron. There are already YouTube videos galore demonstrating as much. Why your suggestion is idiotic and a waste of time. It's been done to death and already well known. To suggest it just demonstrates your ignorance, like saying I should try putting wheels on a car. Try coming up with something original for a change.

Have you ever seen a bubble light Christmas tree ornament? Boils on one end condenses on the other.

You come up with magic thermodynamic fantasies all the time, yet still don't recognize how your theory provides a violation of the first law. The second law can't be broken without the first law being broken. Your experiment is inconclusive. Most people would want to do a conclusive experiment. Not Tom, nope. Too foolish.

That avoidance is conclusive enough for me. Just put a bell jar over the drinking bird and glass. See if it needs more than ambient heat. Go ahead, I dare you. I double dog dare you.

Moron. Get a life.

What might be interesting would be the bird turning a generator to power the light bulb.

Maybe put some aluminum foil on the birds ass and have it swing past a magnet to generate heat.

So it would run off a light bulb plugged into the wall/utility grid. Who cares?

So it won't normally operate in 100% humidity. Everybody already knows this.

All heat pumps need to be designed appropriately for a given climate. The bird won't work in a climate where the temperature is too cold for the methylene chloride to evaporate, and a common water turbine can't work where water freezes, etc. etc. etc

So a working fluid needs to be selected appropriate to the climate. Big deal.

As I've said before, there are many other cooling systems that are more effective than evaporative cooling in a humid environment.

A heat pump designed for a hot climate will be different than one designed for a cold climate.

Of course the toy bird has its limitations.

How about you try not being a jackass for once.

[Fool]

I'm sure you won't accept this, but, an engine can't be described as self acting if it requires an open system.

You calling one of my suggestions here idiotic, when it both proves a point and has been done, is just lame.

People are probably shaking their heads in disbelief that anyone could be so contradictory, ignorant, and arrogant as Tom Booth. Thanks for demonstrating the first and second laws over and over again. Unthank you for denying, obfuscating, lying, and bantering it.

You are your biggest problem. Your discarding of logic from way more educated and knowledgeable people, and your own and others experimental data, is just poor form. It gets you nowhere. Good luck making any engines or friends. The erroneous directions you are heading are sure to fail.


https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Self ... e&ie=UTF-8

.

[Tom Booth]

I'm sure you won't accept this, but, an engine can't be described as self acting if it requires an open system.

You calling one of my suggestions here idiotic, when it both proves a point and has been done, is just lame.

People are probably shaking their heads in disbelief that anyone could be so contradictory, ignorant, and arrogant as Tom Booth. Thanks for demonstrating the first and second laws over and over again. Unthank you for denying, obfuscating, lying, and bantering it.

You are your biggest problem. Your discarding of logic from way more educated and knowledgeable people, and your own and others experimental data, is just poor form. It gets you nowhere. Good luck making any engines or friends. The erroneous directions you are heading are sure to fail.


https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Self ... e&ie=UTF-8

First of all, I don't have any problems with the first or second laws of thermodynamics as generally stated: 100% efficiency is not possible and conservation of energy.

That allows for the possibility of 99.999% efficiency.

I'm neither trying to go for "over unity" nor "perpetual motion".

Those are your own straw men.

What I have a problem with is some prevalent modern interpretations of the so-called "Carnot Limit" mathematical formula and how it is applied, which reduces the mostly common sense 1st and 2nd Law to a ridiculous and unrealistic restriction based on the temperature difference, interpreted in such a way as to change the unreachable limit from 100% maximum efficiency to a merger 10 or 20% in many instances, particularly in the case of LTD type Stirling engines of obviously very high, near 100% efficiency.

Now you want to play the "open" vs. "closed" vs "isolated" whatever system game.

Is a conventional heat pump an "open" or a "closed" system?

And does the 2nd Law apply to only a closed, only an isolated, or to all systems.

You can find such debates all over the internet without any real resolution or clear definitions.

Some will say that ultimately the "universe" is a closed or isolated system so the 2nd Law applies to everything.

Whatever. I don't have the time or patience for such nonsense debates that go nowhere, I'm sure you could find a number of examples on the various forums.

So what sort of "system" is the Drinking Bird then? That is, running as it normally runs by utilizing evaporative cooling?

I have "Self-Acting Engine" in quotes, because that was Tesla's appellation for his described heat pump + heat engine, which was a name he borrowed from Carnot and Kelvin.

I don't care what category of "system" you or anyone else thinks Tesla's proposed engine fits into, I'm just vaguely interested in if it could actually work or not, just out of curiosity. Even Tesla concluded in the end that if successful it could produce relatively little power output, but IMO, even that would be fine for many purposes, such as supplying power to a remote cabin to power a few lights and a radio, which pretty much describes my situation at the time I became interested in it.

Anyway, what's it to you?

Why such rabbid, fanatical opposition to my chosen hobby?

I'm simply curious.

You and others of your ilk act as though if the drinking Bird or something similar were scaled up a bit the world would come to an end and all of science would fall flat so anyone contemplating making any such attempt must be stopped at all cost.

Your a fucking lunatic.

[Tom Booth]

No doubt, any energy extracted from this should come from the mass of the bird impacting some stop at the end of its travel. It might help to add as much weight to the top and bottom of the bird as possible so there is more mass in motion.

Adding mass to the bird would be similar to adding mass to a flywheel. Nothing more. It is the change in height of the inside fluid that matters. That is related directly to ∆T.

The bird gets top heavy from the heat entering the bottom, and less but most heat leaving the head. ...
...

I get the impression "fool" on this forum is not an individual but exhibits a number of rather distinct and varied personalities, attitudes and opinions, often contradicting one another.

The various staff over on the science forum from which I was unjustly banned perhaps? Too curious and intrigued or insulted and annoyed by my experiments and criticisms to simply lurk in silence, but some more open minded and more intelligent and rational than others. Some humble, receptive and even appreciative, some hostile, vengeful and irrational.

Be that as it may...

About the comment above: "most heat leaving the head"

This is the crux of the issue and the idea on which Tesla's proposed "Self-Acting Engine" depends,... Or rather, Tesla's idea depends on this statement being FALSE.

Conservation of energy, if HEAT is energy and not a fluid, would dictate that energy cannot be used to run a heat engine producing an output of energy in one form, (the mechanical motion of the bird) force X distance but then also continue on through the heat engine as heat: "leaving the head".

Rather, the heat/energy is converted into mechanical motion. Molecular motion is converted to sensible movement of the engine. The heat, in effect is "used up" and this USING UP of heat results in a drop in temperature.

As previously discussed, I'm not entirely certain this principle is applicable to the bird as heat engine, in the same way it may be applicable to a Stirling type heat engines, or if it is true at all. The "ice bomb" engine concept throws the whole idea of "heat" as a motive force out the window in some ways.

Expansion of ice upon freezing, removing heat, contradicts the whole thesis of heat engine operation by expansion that results from ADDING "heat". In a thermal engine that relies on expansion that results from cooling, where does that leave us, as far as our calculations that are based on an opposite principle: expansion through heating?

How is "heat" CONVERTED to an expensive force or "work" if heat is removed to produce the expansive force?

Theory, somewhat adrift at sea...

The idea that "heat" energy is converted by the bird would tend to suggest that heat is "used up" in operating the bird and therefore does not reach the head at all.

In that case, the initial evaporation would produce the ∆T which then the "heat" entering the lower bulb would never get a chance to nullify. The bird should run continuously without any further need for continued evaporation.

Of course, the birds head will be inevitably re-heated by the surrounding ambient heat in the air, regardless of heat reaching it through the internal working fluid or not.

So, can we apply my "insulating the sink" experiments to the bird?

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpx2 ... fOqG4XSYz0

Get the bird running until the heat is good and cold from evaporation, then cover the head with cellophane and an insulating blanket.

How long will it run on the residual cold?

Will the "using up" of heat internally cause a refrigerating effect in the head, as I have apparently seen and demonstrated by my Stirling heat engines experiments?

Maybe the birds head could be cooled by other means, then kept insulated. An insulated head, protected from warming by the surrounding ambient heat should stay cold longer than an exposed head, so the bird with its head insulated should run longer, as has been seen in a Stirling engine when the cold side is insulated when running on ice.

Because "heat"/energy is converted to a different form by the engine then at a minimum, as stated above: "less but most heat leaving the head".

That is, less heat would leave the head of an actively operating bird/heat engine than would leave the head of an inoperative bird/heat engine.

The problem, though, as previously mentioned, the birds as received from the manufacturer are not identical. The two I ordered could not be synchronized for comparison.

If I ordered a dozen more, perhaps two could be found that were near enough to identical for running some meaningful comparisons.

They are relatively inexpensive, so I may just do that. Certainly more economical than the model Stirling engines.

[Tom Booth]

Perhaps we could generalize and say something along the lines of:

Heating or cooling of a substance can result in molecular changes that result in an expansion or contraction or a change in volume of that substance.

A temperature difference engine, then, really does not run on "heat" but on changes in volume, expansion OR contraction, (or both) due to the rearrangement of the underlying molecular structures, which could grow OR shrink, expand OR contract.

You would then, however, be tapping into a rather novel energy source based on such things as molecular bonding.

[Fool]

I think you need to learn more about "molecular change", molecular switch", "molecular bonding", and "evolution.

Helium has no/zero molecular change, or switch, over a range of larger than, 50 Kelvin and below, to and above, 1000 Kelvin. A Stirling engine will run just fine, well within that range. Proving no molecular change is needed for operation of a Stirling engine.

[Fool]

Heating and cooling never results in a gas "contracting". Gas never pulls a piston in. It always pushes out on a piston at all realistic temperatures.

Heating or cooling just changes the pressure of the gas. Changing the volume also changes the pressure.

If a contained gas volume is allowed to change, or forced to change volume, at the same time as heat is absorbed or rejected, the temperature, pressure, and volume could all change or any one not. The equation describing it is : PV = nRT.

.

[Fool]

Use a can of expanding foam, encase the drinking bird's head in it for insulation, and put it in the refrigerator 40 F for a week, the entire bird will obtain that cold temperature. Pulling it out and setting it up with a correct height dry glass, will allow you to see a 'clunker'. LOL. It will clunk down and stay that way, from being very top heavy.

If it is now counter balanced with lead shot to it's butt, humor noted. The pivot resistance, from weight, might be too much for the very limited CG change to overcome. The added mass will probably change the frequency of operation.

The control would be to put a unmodified bird into the refrigerator and see if and how long it runs. The cold bird will condense moisture, which will evaporated and cool somewhat. Condensation is a warming effect.

A non running test could be done on the same bird to see how long it takes to warm up.

If you manage to get the insulated bird to run, and if it heats up and stops running, we can conclude that the "self cooling" is insufficient for the heat creep, or non-existent.

If it keeps running indefinitely, then the 2nd law is dead. All in all, it is a formidable project to attempt. Best of results to you, or anyone.

I'm also wondering if a specially designed bird, with an extra evacuated bulb over its head bulb.

Maybe suran wrap or small bag could be placed over it's head and inflated to provide a dead air space? Might be enough insulation and a lot lighter? The pivot point could be changed instead of counter weights.

.

[Fool]

The "ice bomb" engine concept throws the whole idea of "heat" as a motive force out the window in some ways.

Not at all. It is solved by defining directions and negative numbers. Opposite effect, negative heat, positive work output.

Heating and cooling are still both needed for a complete cycle. Furthermore, it is not a constant temperature process. As the pressure inside builds the temperature needed to freeze gets lower. That automatically, by nature, produces a temperature difference, ∆T. And it proves the second law by the necessity of both heating and cooling at different temperatures.

.

[Fool]

What I have a problem with is some prevalent modern interpretations of the so-called "Carnot Limit" mathematical formula and how it is applied, which reduces the mostly common sense 1st and 2nd Law to a ridiculous and unrealistic restriction based on the temperature difference, interpreted in such a way as to change the unreachable limit from 100% maximum efficiency to a merger 10 or 20% in many instances, particularly in the case of LTD type Stirling engines of obviously very high, near 100% efficiency.

That is Tom Booth having a problem with the second law of thermodynamics. 99.999 essentially is 100%. No one has ever come close to that. Not even you. A simple dynamometer measurement would convince you of that. Your thought that you are self cooling, as Tesla, would be found to be 5% or even less.

And the second law only allows the thermodynamic efficiency to be 99% or so with appropriate temperature values. Says nothing of mechanical inefficiencies. Mechanical inefficiencies get added to the thermodynamic inefficiencies. That is demonstrated in the book "The History of The Heat Engine".

.

[Fool]

Now you want to play the "open" vs. "closed" vs "isolated" whatever system game.

"Game"? The words used in science get very specific definitions. Using them around scientists allows faster, clearer, and better discussions. Seeing arguments out on web sites by laymen, hardly counts as definitive. One of the reasons science is so meticulous is that definitions need to be given to be sure scientists understand the way terms are being used in the way they already know they are defined, plus any slight subtle important differences. Lots of boring definitions. It provides information needed to ensure a repeat the experiment is possible.

Layman talks, as the ones we have, are tits in the wind, definitions are often left out. We don't get paid for our work, therefore we spend little time perfecting our words. Zero peer review before hitting send. We are assuming the recipient understands, or will ask for clarification.

It appears you have a bigger problem than open or closed. It is your adherence to a system that you don't understand. When you make the claim that the universe is a closed system, therefore everything is a closed system, you forget that if a "system" contains smaller "systems", one of the smaller systems can have decreasing entropy, while another adds to that system with decreasing entropy. A closed and isolated system always increases in entropy, but smaller systems inside can have an entropy decrease, while others pay for that decrease.

The sun, sending out energy. It is winding down. It's entropy is increasing. That energy hits Earth. It causes animals and plants to increase in energy and complexity/growth. The Earth is winding up. It's entropy is increasing. The direction those two systems are in opposition, but one is feeding from the other. Separate open systems, in an ultimately closed universe.

Take the drinking bird for example. It consists of two glass bulbs and an interconnecting glass tube. It is a sealed system. Can we say it is "closed" at that surface. Yes. But we then have to qualify it by saying that heat and work can be passed in and out through that surface. Mass can't pass in and out. So it is closed but not isolated. The only thing the inside of the bird sees is a temperature difference between head and tail, gravity and which way is up.

Now let's expand the boundary and include the immediate air in the room. We can now see how the bird gets a temperature difference and detects gravity. Warm room on bird bottom, dry air on bird head. Evaporation carrying off water providing cooling. Bird dipping, work, into glass replenishing water, feet providing pivot. Etc. it is now an open system with water mass being carried off by dry air in an endless flow of dry air. The outside influences are more complex than simple temperature differences. The sealed bird has little influence on the approaching dry air or warm air temperature.

My point is a system is in an imaginary boundary, which sometimes gets described or drawn schematically, where the effects outside are reduced to what transfers into and out of the boundary. The model then must be limited to what's inside plus the inputs and outputs.

When a buffer pressure is added to a model, it changes the model for all parts of the cycle.

If the boundary of the drinking bird is increased to the whole Earth then the model must include weather patterns to explain the dry air, and how the sun and cold of space powers that weather.

The Earth, Mars, and Venus, as well as lots of things in space can be thought of as open systems. The Earth gains mass daily. Yes the Earth's weather is isolated from the weather on those other planets. The weather on other planes has little effect on Earth's weather, but their gravity has some effect, mostly on tides. The Moon and the Sun have the most.

It all depends on how you draw the boundaries, and modeling.

It's not a game, it's just mathematics.

.

[Fool]

And does the 2nd Law apply to only a closed, only an isolated, or to all systems.

It applies to cyclic heat engines. It is a thermodynamic model of cyclic processes. It is concerned with the relationship between, efficiency, heat, work, and temperature. I would guess that would make it available for modeling any closed but not isolated system. With proper modeling it could possibly be used for open systems, or multiple systems.

.

[Fool]

Even Tesla concluded in the end that if successful it could produce relatively little power output, but IMO, even that would be fine for many purposes, such as supplying power to a remote cabin to power a few lights and a radio, which pretty much describes my situation at the time I became interested in it.

So Tesla admitted it won't work, at least not well. You have a desire for lots of power. You won't get that from your indoor wood stove unless it overheated you and your cabin. Maybe you can get it to work. You have Carnot and Clausius working against your Tesla.

However, you may have better luck with an outside very hot firebox running a high temperature Stirling and channeling exhaust chimney heat into your cabin as needed. It would need to be a lot bigger fire, consuming a lot more wood and much hotter.

[Fool]

Anyway, what's it to you?

Why such rabbid, fanatical opposition to my chosen hobby?

I'm simply curious.

You and others of your ilk act as though if the drinking Bird or something similar were scaled up a bit the world would come to an end and all of science would fall flat so anyone contemplating making any such attempt must be stopped at all cost.

Your a fucking lunatic.

I am not as bad as you make me out to be. If your hobby were making and testing heat engines it would be excellent. Your hobbies appear to be wide spread and many are interesting.

What I find objectionable is your abrasive, and arrogant response to being questioned. I came here to add classical thermodynamics to this site and learn some in the process. I would not have known about you being kicked off from any other websites except for your discourse here. You practically invited me to join one other site, and dared me to join another that I didn't join.

I strive really hard to keep this civil, and to only speak of how thermodynamics really works. Sometimes you open the door for posts like this, apparently out of your own insecurities.

If you were secure in your Carnot bashing, you would not be upset with the thought of measuring an indicator diagram, or dynamometer power out. Or me pointing out you will get 0.010 Watts with 80 Watts input. Or calmly pointing out the indicator or dynamometer data that shows I'm wrong. Perhaps one day you will just decide to grow up.

.

[Fool]

About the comment above: "most heat leaving the head"

This is the crux of the issue and the idea on which Tesla's proposed "Self-Acting Engine" depends,... Or rather, Tesla's idea depends on this statement being FALSE.

If the thermodynamic efficiency is greater than 50% more heat comes out as work, than out as rejected heat.

Just because you are trying to run your engine on 100 to 200 F, doesn't mean a well designed system with better temperatures, won't have better efficiencies. You are so wrapped up in low power low temperature pancake engines that are very difficult to scale up, that you don't see that there are viable solutions out there. Phillips and others have proven that.

The drinking bird is running from temperature of about 300 K and 305 K. Because of that it has very low and difficult power, pressure, and especially temperatures to measure. Milliwatts maybe less than a milliwatt.

.