Stirling Engine & Heat Pump

Discussion on Stirling or "hot air" engines (all types)
Tom Booth
Posts: 4669
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:03 am
Location: Fort Plain New York USA
Contact:

Re: Stirling Engine & Heat Pump

Post by Tom Booth »

Fool wrote: Sat Oct 26, 2024 7:22 am .

It might help to use the analogy of a lottery or bingo ball blowing sphere. The balls are blown around, speed equals temperature. They bounce off the walls and each other.

Every time a ball is removed the volume of the container doesn't change it's size. Less balls are bouncing, same speed, pressure different. This is the same as condensing liquid onto the walls. Eventually only one ball would be left. It still bounces through the full volume at the same speed, but lower pressure.

Turn the fan speed up. Same number of balls. Same volume. Higher pressure. Down, same number of balls same volume lower pressure.

.
Balls removed?

How about just turn off the blower, then all the balls "contract". "Condense" in the bottom of the container.
Fool
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2023 9:14 am

Re: Stirling Engine & Heat Pump

Post by Fool »

.

Wow. The above science that Tom fails again to grasp, has certainly sent him into a tirade. Sorry. That rage is blinding you. Now you've brought in the need to explain gravity, which has little influence on the gas pressure in our engines.

Perhaps one day you will understand the difference between being outside the atmosphere and outside the gravitational well. 100 miles up is one but not the other. Please go figure it out. It's just math. Hint, gravity becomes relevant when very very large masses are available, such as gas condensing into a planet.

Turning the fan off? Remember speed is temperature, it's like cooling all the molecules to absolute zero Kelvin almost instantaneously. At zero Kelvin none of the molecules have any kinetic energy, speed, so none are gas. Zero pressure, not negative. Of course in the remaining volume, a complete vacuum, the boiling temperature will also be zero. Any energy added will tend to provide a gaseous molecule to bounce around and fill the container with a very slight positive pressure. My point of the analogy was to show that even one molecule, with gas momentum, will be a positive absolute pressure.



Tom Booth wrote:Gas in a 55 gallon drum will implode the drum.


No mechanism to do so. Gas inside a balloon doesn't implode a balloon. Put a collapsed tied balloon into a bell jar and apply a pump to remove the air. The balloon will try to fill the volume with the little residual air left inside when tied. Gas inside always pushes, a law before all other laws, observed many ways. Easy science. If you can't get that you won't get anything else. As Professor Baker used to say, "F=ma and you can't push on a rope".

The 55 gallon drum demonstration is also used to show how weak a drum is from external pressure. Less than 14 psi to crush/compress it. The Titian Submarine require around 6000 psi. Substantially more. The vacuum inside the drum did not 'pull' it in. It was crushed by outside pressure. The experiment will not work if done in a vacuum.

55 gallon drums are weak in compression, so are tank cars and all tanks. Very thick walls are needed to handle compression from the outside pressure. Walls can be thinner for internal expansive pressure, like your shop compressor or propane bottles. Even an oxygen bottle 2000 to 4000 psi, is way thinner than the sphere on the Alvin Submarine. 1/8 inch verses 2 inches, or there abouts.

Tom your education has missed many many areas needed to argue these points. Sorry again. Or as Molly Brown says "a pity".

P.S., Tom I see the progression of you picking up some of this science, backing away from you misguided ways, however it is very, very, very slow. Good.

Some of the things you've learned:
There is such a thing as internal energy.
Adiabatic temperature drop, verses, temperature reduction from heat removal requiring a temperature difference.
People think that nature makes gasses always push, even though molecules always attract and repel.
Temperature is molecular speed and momentum.
Gravity works because there is a very large mass.
The first law of thermodynamics prevents any perpetual motion machines of any kind.
Heat engine require a temperature difference.
It's easy to compress a gas, just smash it with a piston.

.
Fool
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2023 9:14 am

Re: Stirling Engine & Heat Pump

Post by Fool »

.
Tom Booth wrote:A "fixed container" like a balloon? A 55 gallon drum? A tanker?


As in fixed volume. Like an oxygen tank or scuba tank. Not fix in position. Fix in volume. I suspect that most people understood that. One that can hold a vacuum or pressure without crushing.

.
Fool
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2023 9:14 am

Re: Stirling Engine & Heat Pump

Post by Fool »

.

Matt, yes work = Force times distance = pressure time Volume change. Zero force, zero work. Zero pressure difference, zero force, zero work. Expansion without work is irreversible.

Yes, adding gas mass to the volume inside a working cylinder increases the pressure swing, and heat carrying ability. More mass more heat transfer.

Both are as important as the law that gas always pushes. Gas always pushing and why, is way more fundamental.

.
Tom Booth
Posts: 4669
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:03 am
Location: Fort Plain New York USA
Contact:

Re: Stirling Engine & Heat Pump

Post by Tom Booth »

Fool wrote: Sun Oct 27, 2024 6:32 am .

Both are as important as the law that gas always pushes. Gas always pushing and why, is way more fundamental.
https://youtu.be/vCadcBR95oU
Tom Booth
Posts: 4669
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:03 am
Location: Fort Plain New York USA
Contact:

Re: Stirling Engine & Heat Pump

Post by Tom Booth »

Let's examine a balloon.

https://youtu.be/4d0FA8yImt0

In this video, I believe it is stated that the balloon shrinks much more than predicted by the gas law because...

Drum roll...

Intermolecular attraction. Something the self proclaimed "fool" says absolutely can never ever happen.

Go figure.

Or maybe he said that gases ALLWAYS PUSH? and never ever contract?

He talks kind of fast, so maybe I heard that wrong.
matt brown
Posts: 749
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2022 11:25 pm

Re: Stirling Engine & Heat Pump

Post by matt brown »

Tom Booth wrote: Sun Oct 27, 2024 6:59 pm
In this video, I believe it is stated that the balloon shrinks much more than predicted by the gas law because...
there was a phase change, duh

balloons.png
balloons.png (189.72 KiB) Viewed 870 times

Fool has attraction and repulsion correct and that...none of us will ever have to worry about this. Fool may not be an enginenut, but he's a helluva science nerd.
Tom Booth
Posts: 4669
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:03 am
Location: Fort Plain New York USA
Contact:

Re: Stirling Engine & Heat Pump

Post by Tom Booth »

matt brown wrote: Sun Oct 27, 2024 8:10 pm
Tom Booth wrote: Sun Oct 27, 2024 6:59 pm
In this video, I believe it is stated that the balloon shrinks much more than predicted by the gas law because...
there was a phase change, duh


balloons.png


Fool has attraction and repulsion correct and that...none of us will ever have to worry about this. Fool may not be an enginenut, but he's a helluva science nerd.
Of course you will say that. You two idiots always back up each other's idiocy.

However, clearly the gas when behaving as a real gas not an ideal gas is still a gas.

The reduction in kinetic energy accounts for the IDEAL behavior: so the volume decreases.

But there is a steady decrease in volume greater than what can be accounted for by the reduction of repulsion or reduction in kinetic energy alone.

The video is clear and the comments are clear and dozens of additional credible scientific, expert references are clear.

The non-ideal behavior of the GAS, the additional unexpected reduction in volume can only be accounted for by the attractive molecular forces which you two lunkheads insist don't exist because you have some old introductory high school physics book you found at a yard sale that says so in regard to "ideal gas behavior" and does not cover Van der Waals because that would only confuse the little pea size brain you have between the two of you.

Helium approximates an "ideal gas". Which is the whole point of the demonstration.

The additional shrinkage seen in the air filled balloon is due to molecular attraction.

Helium has less or weaker molecular attractive forces than other gases.

Use some common sense.

Oh, I forgot, you two morons don't have that faculty.
Fool
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2023 9:14 am

Re: Stirling Engine & Heat Pump

Post by Fool »

.
Tom Booth wrote: Sun Oct 27, 2024 6:59 pm Let's examine a balloon.

https://youtu.be/4d0FA8yImt0

In this video, I believe it is stated that the balloon shrinks much more than predicted by the gas law because...

Drum roll...

Intermolecular attraction. Something the self proclaimed "fool" says absolutely can never ever happen.

Go figure.

Or maybe he said that gases ALLWAYS PUSH? and never ever contract?

He talks kind of fast, so maybe I heard that wrong.
The balloon shrinks because the external pressure compresses it to the point where internal and external pressure are equal. I never said that molecules don't attract. I said kinetic energy is responsible for the volume and pressure of gas more so than the intermolecular forces of attraction.

If there were only attractive forces responsible, the gas phase would be absent from nature. Kinetic energy is responsible for the volume increase associated with the gas phase.

You lament over a trivial difference. And lie about what I say. And bring up cherry picked useless comments. And haven't yet shown any reference to negative pressure or gasses pulling, or even having zero pressure. Please stop misleading yourself and others.

.
Tom Booth
Posts: 4669
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:03 am
Location: Fort Plain New York USA
Contact:

Re: Stirling Engine & Heat Pump

Post by Tom Booth »

Fool wrote: Mon Oct 28, 2024 6:47 am .
Tom Booth wrote: Sun Oct 27, 2024 6:59 pm Let's examine a balloon.

https://youtu.be/4d0FA8yImt0

In this video, I believe it is stated that the balloon shrinks much more than predicted by the gas law because...

Drum roll...

Intermolecular attraction. Something the self proclaimed "fool" says absolutely can never ever happen.

Go figure.

Or maybe he said that gases ALLWAYS PUSH? and never ever contract?

He talks kind of fast, so maybe I heard that wrong.
The balloon shrinks because the external pressure compresses it to the point where internal and external pressure are equal. I never said that molecules don't attract. I said kinetic energy is responsible for the volume and pressure of gas more so than the intermolecular forces of attraction. (emphasis added)

If there were only attractive forces responsible, the gas phase would be absent from nature. Kinetic energy is responsible for the volume increase associated with the gas phase.

You lament over a trivial difference. And lie about what I say. And bring up cherry picked useless comments. And haven't yet shown any reference to negative pressure or gasses pulling, or even having zero pressure. Please stop misleading yourself and others.

.
Again you are just straw manning, lying and misrepresenting, and just making things up out of thin air.

I never said that molecules don't attract. I said kinetic energy is responsible for the volume and pressure of gas more so than the intermolecular forces of attraction. "

We are talking about gases, so that is a bold faced lie. You've insisted over and over and over that gas molecules "never" attract but only expand "forever".

Taken together, I'll accept all that as a concession.

You have made reference to "the intermolecular forces of attraction", which you previously denied exist at all.

"If there were only attractive forces responsible, the gas phase would be absent from nature. Kinetic energy is responsible for the volume increase associated with the gas phase." (emphasis added)

Nice to see you softening your rhetoric.

Of course I never said there were "only attractive forces" more straw manning.
Fool
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2023 9:14 am

Re: Stirling Engine & Heat Pump

Post by Fool »

.
Tom Booth wrote:Of course you will say that. You two idiots always back up each other's idiocy.


Thanks Matt. One of these days the poor dolt will realize that it is science that backs us up. We only know each other from our science here. Sorry your vituperation is completely unfounded as is your knowledge of science. Give it a rest.
Tom Booth wrote:But there is a steady decrease in volume greater than what can be accounted for by the reduction of repulsion or reduction in kinetic energy alone.
Yes. That's what we've been saying all along. Real gasses, always push, and behave differently than an ideal gas outside of a certain range. Classical theory has known that since before the ideal gas theory and is reflected in the need to use a steam table and or phase diagram. We learned that in college because it is to much for a simple highschool class.

You still have no reference to gasses pulling or negative pressure or even zero pressure. Please make appropriate apologies to Matt and myself. Or is your rage still blinding you to this simple fact.

.
Fool
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2023 9:14 am

Re: Stirling Engine & Heat Pump

Post by Fool »

.
Tom Booth wrote:Of course I never said there were "only attractive forces" more straw manning.


The consequence of claiming erroneously that gasses contract

Gasses always push, it is part of the definition of being a gas.

https://www.britannica.com/science/gas-state-of-matter
gas
state of matter
Also known as: gaseous state

gas, one of the three fundamental states of matter, with distinctly different properties from the liquid and solid states.


Structure
The remarkable feature of gases is that they appear to have no structure at all. They have neither a definite size nor shape, whereas ordinary solids have both a definite size and a definite shape, and liquids have a definite size, or volume, even though they adapt their shape to that of the container in which they are placed. Gases will completely fill any closed container; their properties depend on the volume of a container but not on its shape.
Google wrote:1. : a fluid (such as air) that has neither independent shape nor volume but tends to expand indefinitely. 2. a. : a combustible gas or gaseous mixture for fuel or lighting...
.
Tom Booth
Posts: 4669
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:03 am
Location: Fort Plain New York USA
Contact:

Re: Stirling Engine & Heat Pump

Post by Tom Booth »

Fool wrote: Mon Oct 28, 2024 9:28 am .
Tom Booth wrote:Of course I never said there were "only attractive forces" more straw manning.


The consequence of claiming erroneously that gasses contract.
You must have some kind of mental defect or problem of some sort.

Maybe you can explain the significant difference between a reduction in kinetic energy that results in attractive forces dominating along with a resulting reduction in volume and "contraction".

There is no "consequence" outside your own twisted mind. If you actually have a mind.
Fool
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2023 9:14 am

Re: Stirling Engine & Heat Pump

Post by Fool »

.

One of these days you will understand that using the term "contract" for gas in an engine is just plain wrong. It is misleading to call the compression stroke a contraction stroke. Gasses never pull, they always push. A greater than inside force from the outside must be used to compress the gas. When the volume decreases gasses absorb.work. when volume increases gasses release work.

.
Fool
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2023 9:14 am

Re: Stirling Engine & Heat Pump

Post by Fool »

.
Tom Booth wrote: You must have some kind of mental defect or problem of some sort.


Attacking the poster, not the science, is a sure sign of being wrong. "A pity".

.
Post Reply