Forces of attraction and repulsion of gas molecules in a Stirling engine.

[matt brown]

All you do is keep repeating the same mantra "Gas always pushes, never pulls" like some kind of record player.

gas always pushes, never pulls...gas always pushes, never pulls...and Fool pushed the proof long ago...

Take a single cylinder 'engine' charged with 2 bar helium (piston BDC) and place it in a vacuum chamber...

(1) will piston move ??? NO, cylinder pressure remains constant

(2) now chill vacuum chamber real cold, will piston move ??? NO, cylinder pressure DECREASES but gas does not "contract" and suck in piston

Your contraction BS is from bogus fantasy regarding how ambient pressure effects expansion and compression processes during a cycle. This is just as lame as the balloon video with liquid nitrogen that avoids discussing what happens to each balloon if same 'experiment' was conducted in a vacuum...

[Tom Booth]

....cylinder pressure DECREASES but gas does not "contract" and suck in piston

...

OK, so.

The gas "attracts" the pressure reduces and atmospheric pressure pushed the piston back to TDC.

We don't live in outer space.

Personally, the Lennard Jones attraction forces appear to apply to ALL particles, atoms, molecules, gas, liquid or solid, between gas and solid, gas and liquid, gas and gas etc.

So, I don't think it is out of the question for a contracting gas to "pull' a piston with it as it contracts.

Your opinions are based on antiquated, obsolete 1820's disproven theory.

The attractive forces in atoms and molecules don't actually recognize your supposed clear divisions between phases of matter.

[matt brown]

The gas "attracts" the pressure reduces and atmospheric pressure pushed the piston back to TDC.

So, your 'attraction' just happens to coincide with values that the ideal gas law predicts ???

Any low pressure (under 100 bar) gas will align very close to the ideal gas law when supercritical. Those phase diagrams that Fool flashes might appear mumbo-jumbo, but they're loaded with info except for the upper right corner which is the supercritical region (ideal gas law domain).

So, I don't think it is out of the question for a contracting gas to "pull' a piston with it as it contracts.

Too bad I don't have any university friends which could run a frosty vacuum test/demo.

Your opinions are based on antiquated, obsolete 1820's disproven theory.

Most thermo stuff has been proven some many times that nobody questions it except for a few anarchists. Your problem is not thinking you're right as much as it is trying to convince everybody else that they're wrong.

[Tom Booth]

I'm trying to mind my own business, not trying to "convince" anyone of anything.

I don't care what you morons think or don't think. I just can't get rid of your stupid meddling asses that insist on trashing my threads and discussions and downplaying, the importance of my research experiments.

I've been putting up with you "Carnot limit" peddling ass holes for about a decade or more.

Early on I studied it very thoroughly, the history, the mathematics, the rationale and long ago concluded it was all crap without foundation and moved on.

You "Carnot is God" lunatics follow me around like lost puppy dogs pissing and shitting your nonsensical crap all up and down any open minded sensible discussion of Stirling engine improvement.

No no no no....

No improvement whatsoever is possible because Carnot Limit,Carnot limit,... Can't beat Carnot limit, Carnot RULES,.

Your idiotic lunatics fixated on a theory from 1820's proposed by a dead guy who tried to tell everyone he was wrong.

You're the psychopaths going head over heals trying to "teach" and "correct" and "educate" me with your stale old so-called Carnot "science".

Go jump in a lake. Worship the corps of Sadi Carnot all you like, I don't care.

[matt brown]

I'm trying to mind my own business, not trying to "convince" anyone of anything.

You've made a career out of trashing most thermo after it upset your apple cart. You're the guy fixated on Carnot, but you didn't stop there and moved on to trashing PV plots, ideal gas law, etc.

Early on I studied it very thoroughly, the history, the mathematics, the rationale and long ago concluded it was all crap without foundation and moved on.

Thermo favors formal education vs self study which is a long and tortuous path...

[Fool]

.

Have you noticed he has run out of science. So now is going wild. Hmmmm. It must be blinding rage. Very little else can explain his lack of cohesive logic. Cognitive dissonance.

.

[Fool]

.

What I find interesting is his ability to completely misunderstand a scientific graph. For example the Lennar Jones Potential graph. At the bottom point where forces add to zero. Lowest potential energy. If cooled to zero Kelvin. Absence of molecular motion. The molecules will sit at that distance, close but apart. Bottom of the energy well.

Add heat, the molecules will 'vibrate' about that point. Getting closer and further apart. In engineering that is called a stability. Any small deviation from that distance provides a restoring force. They will be closer to the bottom of the well with lower temperatures, and rise up as the vibrations get larger, more deviation.

The asymmetry of the well, longer on the right side, describes why there is expansion of the solid with more thermal energy. In other words vibration makes them move away more than closer. Like hitting a wall then expanding into a room.

If the liquid phase is that the molecules are in mutual orbits, that will look like a stationary point on the graph to the right of the lowest. Faster orbits will be higher on the curve, more to the right. The orbits will fluctuate around that point, like vibrating solids. That is why liquids expand more than solids. There are some that don't have a well that is like this, water expands on freezing, it may look different. I'd have to research it.

So what happens if the kinetic energy is sufficient for the molecules to escape, the further out the less attraction. It dwindles to darn near zero just a few radiuses out. So the two molecules if fast enough leave each other. If fast enough they head closer to another molecule. Then they bounce. Free ranging, so to speak. They are still attracted, and repelled but are now bouncing off each other like ping pong balls off of paddles and other balls. They spend very little of their travels back on the range of that chart. Their volume rises many times above the density of the solid or liquid phases.

Temperature doesn't change the curve. Only the speed of the molecules. Same attraction at the same distances. Different speeds and range of distances.

The little girls bucket contained a large number of molecules, collisions speeds, to maintain a pressure of about 14.7 psi.

.

[Tom Booth]

I'm trying to mind my own business, not trying to "convince" anyone of anything.

You've made a career out of trashing most thermo after it upset your apple cart. You're the guy fixated on Carnot, but you didn't stop there and moved on to trashing PV plots, ideal gas law, etc.

Early on I studied it very thoroughly, the history, the mathematics, the rationale and long ago concluded it was all crap without foundation and moved on.

Thermo favors formal education vs self study which is a long and tortuous path...

Yes, LOL...

I'm sure it is torturous, having your ability to think and reason systematically stripped away and replaced by contradictory, baseless, illogical, unproven bullshit

Any thinking person with a shred of independent thought or common sense would discard the Carnot Limit theory that you love and preach as your gospel. "Carnot wins!" "Carnot wins again!'

How pathetic.

[Tom Booth]

.

Have you noticed he has run out of science. So now is going wild. Hmmmm. It must be blinding rage. Very little else can explain his lack of cohesive logic. Cognitive dissonance.

.

You admit your Carnot Limit theories do not explain my experimental results you call "a temperature anomaly".

IMO, the Lennard-Jones potential data provides a model of molecular behavior that quite adequately does explain my results on the basis of molecular interactions, repulsive AND attractive forces.

You choose to ridicule and belittle and misrepresent such sound science even claiming it doesn't apply to gases, only liquids and solids, which is just ignorance or intentional lying.

[Tom Booth]

.

What I find interesting is his ability to completely misunderstand a scientific graph. For example the Lennar Jones Potential graph. At the bottom point where forces add to zero. Lowest potential energy. If cooled to zero Kelvin. Absence of molecular motion. The molecules will sit at that distance, close but apart. Bottom of the energy well.

...

LOL...

The "bottom of the energy well" has to do with the balance of attractive and repulsive forces.

Just as you can have magnets that attract and repel at room temperature, or any temperature, that lower curve does not represent absolute zero.

It is the point where the attractive and repulsive forces are in balance, not where they no longer exist, moron

[Fool]

.

You admit your Carnot Limit theories do not explain my experimental results you call "a temperature anomaly".

That is your problem. Experimental results that come out different from expected results is an anomaly. It doesn't necessarily mean the expected results are wrong. There are many other potential explanations. Some are, experimental error. Misunderstanding as to how to apply the expectations. Experimental inconclusiveness, precision of data not sufficient. Error in assumptions. Expectations wrong because of the precision of measurements. Insufficient data for any conclusions. Wrong equipment. Insufficient size, mass, power, and magnitude. The list goes on.

Experimental anomaly just implies different experiments need to be used to get to the bottom of why there is an anomaly. The time you've spent here bashing, Carnot, Kelvin, Clausius, kinetic theory, etc... could easily have been to redo the experiment with a homemade dynamometer, several times over. Thus aiding you in understanding what you are seeing. Instead you continue to mislead yourself and others in a free energy crusade. Obviously because you either fear being wrong, or are too immature to care.

.

[Fool]

.

that lower curve does not represent absolute zero.

I keep telling you that you don't understand graphs.

That graph is energy verses.distance. If a molecule is vibrating, it's distance is changing. That change is entered on that graph by a left right position. Over time that will look like a horizontal line segment left and right the width of the energy well near the bottom at cooler temperatures. It will elongate and move up the well as temperature increases. Vibration gets wilder. If the temperature drops to Zero Kelvin. The vibrations stop. That is entered as a single point, no motion. It will be at the point where the two forces are equal and opposite, adding to a force of zero net.

The problem is you don't know how to add forces or what effect one force has on another. Engineers call it super position. I don't think you understand that word either.

The bottom of the energy well isn't zero it is a position that the molecule takes when it's as cold as it will ever get. Zero Kelvin just means no motion.

It is the point where the attractive and repulsive forces are in balance, not where they no longer exist, moron

More unacceptable vituperation. Shame on you.

It is the point where the molecules will rest when they are at zero Kelvin. The forces exist but cancel each other out. Zero net force on the molecules. You don't understand superposition.

.

[Tom Booth]

.... The time you've spent here bashing, Carnot, Kelvin, Clausius, kinetic theory, etc... could easily have been to redo the experiment with a homemade dynamometer, several times over. ...

True, but the majority of my time here is spent defending myself from your neverending lies and misrepresentations and ignorant misinformation.

Please stop. That would give me more time to spend on productive pursuits.

You fill this forum with your long nonsensical ramblings which is bad enough, but unfortunately I cannot tolerate the outright lies about me, Miss portrayals of my intentions and factual misrepresentations of my ideas, theories and experiments.

Please go away.

[Tom Booth]

.

that lower curve does not represent absolute zero.

I keep telling you that you don't understand graphs.

That graph is energy verses.distance. If a molecule is vibrating, it's distance is changing. That change is entered on that graph by a left right position. Over time that will look like a horizontal line segment left and right the width of the energy well near the bottom at cooler temperatures. It will elongate and move up the well as temperature increases. Vibration gets wilder. If the temperature drops to Zero Kelvin. The vibrations stop. That is entered as a single point, no motion. It will be at the point where the two forces are equal and opposite, adding to a force of zero net.

The problem is you don't know how to add forces or what effect one force has on another. Engineers call it super position. I don't think you understand that word either.

The bottom of the energy well isn't zero it is a position that the molecule takes when it's as cold as it will ever get. Zero Kelvin just means no motion.

It is the point where the attractive and repulsive forces are in balance, not where they no longer exist, moron

More unacceptable vituperation. Shame on you.

It is the point where the molecules will rest when they are at zero Kelvin. The forces exist but cancel each other out. Zero net force on the molecules. You don't understand superposition.

.

OK double down on your idiocy, I don't care.

Anyone who spends five minutes research on the subject will know you're wrong, as you are about most everything else.

If the bottom of the curve represented absolute zero, the curve would not continue to the left, nincompoop.

Your arrogance and idiocy is a bad combination of traits. Continue displaying your ignorance.

[Fool]

.

I don't doubt there are many people as misguided as you. A pity.

Gasses always push, never pull. Heat spontaneously moves out of hot, into cold.

.