Stirling Engine & Heat Pump

[Tom Booth]

.

When you start succeeding in constructing perpetual motion machines, or engines that are more efficient than Carnot, people will stop laughing at you. You're the one lacking any mathematics, data, or extraordinary evidence. You are just full of wind, spite, and vituperation.


When a person is clinging to the refuted mystic belief that perpetual motion is possible, they soon start grasping at straws, lying, defrauding, and cursing.


.

"Perpetual motion" is your Strawman delusion.

I'm only saying ∆T does not determine or "limit" efficiency.

Any off-the-shelf Stirling engine will demonstrate that, and it has been demonstrated to my own satisfaction dozens of times in many different ways.

I've put together and tested numerous Stirling engine models, that demonstrate conclusively, to my own satisfaction that there is in some models zero to negative "waste heat" with temperatures at or below ambient at the cold supposed "heat rejection" side of the engine.

In the worst case the engine still far far exceeded the Carnot limit in actual,measured thermal efficiency over 90%

Further, in 150 years, there has been zero experimental verification or support for the "Carnot limit" actually demonstrated in any way.

The mathematics used to determine so-called Carnot Limit is imbecilic nonsense having nothing to do with any engine, based on a completely obsolete, fallacious theory of heat.

Those are my 100% objective and honest findings, determinations and experimental results, repeated again and again and recorded on video.

Anyone who is curious and not prejudice as you are, can obtain and test their own Stirling engines at very little expense and repeat any of my experiments for themselves.

What do you have?

All I see in support of the so-called "Carnot Limit" is an unproven, nonsensical equation based on two thermometer readings having no rational basis other than the obsolete Caloric theory that heat "falls down" like a waterfall from a high to a low temperature.

You are a silly delusional man grasping at straws.

The so-called "Carnot Limit" has no basis in fact. There is nothing to it. It's a baseless chimera.

[Fool]

.

Your unauthoritative, uneducated, opinion is very obviously erroneous. Your erroneous opinion violates the second law of thermodynamics and would allow a perpetual motion machine of the second kind, which makes your comments contradictory. A real education would allow you to understand. Lack of education just makes you no better than a common ignoramus. Your opinion, time and time again, noted and easily dismissed.

.

[Tom Booth]

.

Your unauthoritative, uneducated, opinion is very obviously erroneous. Your erroneous opinion violates the second law of thermodynamics and would allow a perpetual motion machine of the second kind, which makes your comments contradictory. A real education would allow you to understand. Lack of education just makes you no better than a common ignoramus. Your opinion, time and time again, noted and easily dismissed.

.

Great, so why waste your time here? Who are you working so hard, day after day, week after week, month after month in here trying to convince I'm wrong and my experiments are "inconclusive" or meaningless if so easily dismissed?

Nothing better to do with your short life than follow a perpetual motion crackpot around the internet obsessively trying to prove him wrong? Why bother when it is already so obvious?

Anyway, I could care less what you or other people think, or what conclusions they come to. If they pay any attention to my research and experiments or not.

I just feel it is worthwhile and my duty and responsibility to put the results of my research out there for whomever might be interested.

All I was interested in is sorting out what happens with heat that goes into a Stirling engine.

Carnot thought it all passes right through like water over a water wheel. That seemed like a reasonable theory to me.

Tesla said heat is energy so the heat is converted and never passes all the way through at all. It seems Tesla was a pretty smart scientist.

Modern theory seems like some kind of compromise between those two extremes.

So I did my own experiments to see if the heat actually goes through and comes out the cold side or not

As it turned out, time after time, careful readings and measurements showed that the only heat getting through a Stirling engine was by conduction through the engine body, convection around the engine or radiation. If all those avenues of transmission were eliminated, no heat whatsoever transfered through the working fluid. Infact, if all those precautions were taken, the cold side of the engine could get COLDER.

Those are my results.

If you think that "would allow a perpetual motion machine of the second kind", well, that's interesting, because that is what Tesla said.

My tests demonstrate Tesla was right. Big surprise. He was a very intelligent guy who was right about many things.

Carnot's theories were completely wrong. Carnot believed that ALL the heat passes through a heat engine. That was proven wrong a long time ago.

The fact is, there is no necessity for ANY of the heat entering a Stirling engine to pass through to the cold side.

Yes, there will be friction and noise and vibration and some radiation loses but the cold side can be shielded from these.

Friction bearings can be located on the hot side etc.

"Heat of compression" from atmospheric "work" is shunted back to the hot side of a Stirling engine for "recycling".

I don't see ANY heat getting through these engines except by conduction through the engine body, which can be minimized by material choices. Just make the engine non-heat conducting.

I'm not after "perpetual motion". I never was.

I was never out to disprove any laws of thermodynamics. I don't care anything about it.

What I do care about is how a Stirling engine ACTUALLY operates.

I've done the experiments. I've gotten my results and I'm moving on.

My conclusion is, Carnot was wrong. His idea when you think about it is silly. Heat is nothing like a river or a waterfall. Heat doesn't "flow" towards cold.

Tesla was correct. There is no necessity for ANY heat to pass all the way through a heat engine. The heat can be converted 100% or sent back to the hot side for "recycling".

Case closed.

Dozens of videos recorded experiments prove it.

If anyone doubts it, anyone with less than $50 can buy a model Stirling engines and do their own experiments and see for themselves, one way or the other.

Nobody needs you "fool" to protect them. People can think for themselves and make up their own minds.

[Fool]

.

Your tests have proven nothing, except your own arrogance.

Nothing better to do with your short life than follow a perpetual motion crackpot around the internet obsessively trying to prove him wrong? Why bother when it is already so obvious?

I've said this before. I'm here because your understanding and postings of classical thermodynamics is wrong. I'm just pointing out why. Your arrogant inability to discuss just the science is what gets in your way. Bringing colorful figures into the discussion, as if they are some kind of reliably authority when they are not, never ceases to humor me. Your ability to ignore and misquote solid science is poor form at best. Since you won't do the simple tests required, you have no leg to stand on. That boils down to you harassing everyone here with your baseless conclusions, banter, and cursing.

You can't even describe the classical interactions and bonds of solid, liquid, and gas correctly.

.

[Fool]

.

Seriously Tom, don't you want the correct viewpoint on the science of heat engines? I'm doing my best here to be correct. That is all I want, to have the correct understanding.

.

[Tom Booth]

.

Seriously Tom, don't you want the correct viewpoint on the science of heat engines? I'm doing my best here to be correct. That is all I want, to have the correct understanding.

.

No, I'm not interested in whatever you, or anyone else might consider "correct".

"Correct" or "incorrect" are for classroom tests or examinations regarding "accepted" theory being taught by whomever.

I'm interested in what's TRUE.

"Correct" and TRUE are not necessarily the same thing.

The kinetic theory of gas model states that gas particles do not interact and have no forces of attraction and repulsion.

That is "correct" according to the kinetic theory, but it is not TRUE in reality.

If the forces of attraction and repulsion are in balance, or in a state of equilibrium, which is generally true at STP for most common gases then the forces of attraction and repulsion can be largely ignored for most practical purposes or calculations, for beginner students at the highschool physics level.

In reality, forces of attraction and repulsion do exist and are always active and have an influence, especially where there is ANY, even slight movement away from STP, where there is a lowering of temperature or increase in pressure particularly. as in any engine or vapor/compression or similar system where pressure and temperature are changed or intentionally manipulated.

[Tom Booth]

Let's take an example of a cylinder containing air at one atmosphere pressure.

If the volume of the cylinder is reduced, the pressure and temperature increase.

Eventually the "heat of compression" will dissipate, but there will still be an elevated pressure even after temperature has equalized.

Even the slightest decrease in volume bringing the gas molecules closer together will result in an increase in pressure.

If the gas molecules inside the cylinder are not interacting at all with relatively speaking "miles" of empty space between them, why should compressing a gas even very slightly ever result in an increase in pressure?

Well, the reduced volume had changed the balance/equilibrium between the attractive and repulsive forces of the molecules within the container. They have been "squeezed" together against their own repulsive forces.

Likewise if the volume is increased. The pressure and temperature decreased. But even after the temperature equalizes, the lower pressure remains, showing that the attractive forces are having a continued influence independently of temperature/internal (kinetic) energy.

[matt brown]

If the gas molecules inside the cylinder are not interacting at all with relatively speaking "miles" of empty space between them, why should compressing a gas even very slightly ever result in an increase in pressure?

Well, the reduced volume had changed the balance/equilibrium between the attractive and repulsive forces of the molecules within the container. They have been "squeezed" together against their own repulsive forces.

Likewise if the volume is increased. The pressure and temperature decreased. But even after the temperature equalizes, the lower pressure remains, showing that the attractive forces are having a continued influence independently of temperature/internal (kinetic) energy.

Nope, reducing volume for a given gas mass increases pressure since the "ping rate" per container area increases. Under your attractive force theory, doubling the gas mass isothermally would have less than double the pressure, oops...

[Fool]

"ping rate". Good description. I was going to say that reducing volume, reduces free path, thus the bouncing molecules path is reduced thus it bounces twice as fast. But ping rate is well put. Like shortening the ping pong table so the ball gets hit back and more often. Same speed, just more "pings", bounces.

Molecular repulsion is why they bounce.

[matt brown]

A physicist/mentor allowed some slang under 2 conditions (1) it be consistent (2) it be accurate. I must point out that only a physicist would downgrade precise to accurate due to some "improper" wording (kinda pedantic, but I survived). The beauty of slang (within logical limits) is that it increases laymen accessibility while often easier to remember. And lest I forget, a little humor goes a long ways with a dry subject (wink-wink Feynman).

[Fool]

.

Kinetic theory works for both ideal gas theory, and real gas theory. It is not limited to one, or to just those two.

Like the Carnot limit it works for multiple theories, not just Caloric, or even kinetic. It also works for information theory, statistical theory, and even quantum theory.

.

[Tom Booth]

If the gas molecules inside the cylinder are not interacting at all with relatively speaking "miles" of empty space between them, why should compressing a gas even very slightly ever result in an increase in pressure?

Well, the reduced volume had changed the balance/equilibrium between the attractive and repulsive forces of the molecules within the container. They have been "squeezed" together against their own repulsive forces.

Likewise if the volume is increased. The pressure and temperature decreased. But even after the temperature equalizes, the lower pressure remains, showing that the attractive forces are having a continued influence independently of temperature/internal (kinetic) energy.

Nope, reducing volume for a given gas mass increases pressure since the "ping rate" per container area increases. ...

Rather than using a piston in a cylinder, you could reduce the volume while maintaining the same exterior surface area. External pressure would, presumably, still increase, though the total internal/interior + internal/exterior surface area for gas "pings" to surface interaction increases.

[Tom Booth]

.

Kinetic theory works for both ideal gas theory, and real gas theory. It is not limited to one, or to just those two.

Like the Carnot limit it works for multiple theories, not just Caloric, or even kinetic. It also works for information theory, statistical theory, and even quantum theory.

.

Kinetic theory says gases have zero interaction and zero attractive force. Therefore no JT effect, no refrigerators, heat pumps, etc.

The theory is essentially obsolete.

Gases actually do have attractive forces, JT is a real thing and refrigerators and heat pumps do actually exist.

[Tom Booth]

Another thought Matt,

"Pings", contact with external surface area, if increased in frequency would transfer additional heat to the outer surface.

A narrow chamber of a given volume should have higher temp/pressure than a wider chamber with more distance between the walls but the same total volume?

No such temperature or pressure differences due to the chamber architecture exist.

[Fool]

Real gas theory is just kinetic theory with size and forces added.