.
Every once in a while, someone verbally says something so stupid that I'm fully convinced that they are too ignorant and arrogant to listen to common logic and understand the concept. At that point I stop talking. The following is such an absolute demonstration of incomprehension that, in person, I would get up and walk away from said individual. It is their problem, no hope of them ever listening, let alone any hope of understanding. I just wish them well and far away from me. ( One example is the person that said to me, How do you use less hand soap!). I write here to clarify the point for people other than that individual, only because this is a public forum, and not his. It's the following:
Tom Booth wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2024 4:07 pm
Fool wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2024 2:11 pm
.
Tommy wrote:zero credible concrete evidence other than your usual "it's impossible" Cannot Limit opinions.
Thanks for verifying that. Yes, Carnot violation is sufficient. No need to expose the exact scam after that.
...
Ignoring the REALITY of a working proof of concept prototype based only on a 200 year old THEORY that was itself based on the obsolete Caloric theory is not science, scientific or even sensible. It's biased and prejudiced "pseudoscience".
Characteristics of a pseudoscience
1) No empirical support.
Carnot Efficiency Limit - no empirical support whatsoever in 200 years.
2) Is hostile to challenges.
Real science welcomes attempts to disprove its theories.
Advocates of the Carnot limit are consistently hostile towards anyone daring to question this "LAW"
3) Pseudoscience is rigid, dogmatic and unchanging. Real science tends to advance and develop with new findings.
The Carnot Limit nonsense has remained an unverified dogmatic assertion since it's inception.never has it been modified or updated so as to incorporate or adjust to new discoveries or findings.
4) Pseudoscience is unfalsifiable.
The Carnot cycle engine cannot exist in reality. It cannot be built, so can never be tested. The claim to being the most efficient engine possible is therefore unfalsifiable. Likewise the "Carnot Limit" which applies to this non-existent fantasy engine
The Carnot fallacy ticks every box.
https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-pse ... ce-2795470
First, here is a better, more detailed link to the modern term "pseudoscience".
https://skepticalscience.com/11-charact ... ience.html
From that website, one will notice that the term doesn't apply to science, or and scientific process. It applies to things that are not science. It has become an oxymoron. Checking the etymology, the first use was calling alchemy pseudoscience, to separate it from the real science of chemistry. Pseudo means fake, and science means knowledge. So the term describes something as fake knowledge. My point is that it is not knowledge if it is fake/wrong. It quite literally does an injustice to knowledge. Something is either, knowledge/truth, or it is lies. This then redefines pseudoscience as lies. Information is science, or it is lies. Borrowing from the medical terms, it is either medicine or quackery. Blowing smoke up ones arse is quackery. Descriptions are either science or quackery. There is no such thing as pseudoscience, it is quackery.
Tom erroneously compares Carnot, a science, to quackery. Tom has used quackery on a well established and supported scientific point. He has done it poorly. In other words, the Carnot Theorem, also called a Limit, doesn't 'tick' any of his four points, nor any of the eleven points.
He has also misled, used quackery, to the three different concepts of the Carnot, limit/theorem, cycle, and engine. They are three different things. He erroneously treats them as if they are the same. He will deny that he's done this. But, any one, or all three could be correct without effecting the others. And they are, all three, correct if used correctly. Using them incorrectly is quackery.
Looking at his specific points:
"1) No empirical support."
First the Theorem is a pure mathematical construct and is proven logically. This is the same principal as the equation for a parabola. No one has built a perfect parabola, even so the equation is not wrong. Empirically a good parabola is good a better parabola is even closer. Empirically real engines are good, but below Carnot. Better engines are closer, but still below the limit.
His first point is quackery. A proper indicator diagram, or work out measurement, is always needed to check Carnot. Or both.
"2) Is hostile to challenges."
Equations, and theorems are not able to be hostile. They are just equations. Any hostility from a scientist towards scammers using quackery, will be mostly from the hostility of the scammers. Scientists, rightfully, have short fuses towards the quackery of scammers. They are very understanding of people trying to educate themselves out of their own ignorance by self choice. Arrogance of scammers is hostility.
"3) Pseudoscience is rigid, dogmatic and unchanging. Real science tends to advance and develop with new findings. "
Although science, or more accurately scientists, are rigid towards the onslaught of quackery, valid scientific data presented properly is slowly accepted. The beauty of science is that quackery can be seen a mile away, and science can be used to protect a person from quackery, without needing to show exactly where the errors by the quacks are. It is called a scientific shortcut. It does slow the progression of real science down to allow proper testing.
The science of Carnot, and other equations, has been challenged for over 100 years. The beauty of science is that it sets up valid ways to challenge it. The way to challenge Carnot is to measure work out and heat in, or an indicator diagram. There are other ways, but the other ways need one of those two, or both and more, for verification. Got it? In other words, quackery challenges nothing except the minds of ignorant people. Science can either challenge or support science/knowledge.
"4) Pseudoscience is unfalsifiable."
Although I'll get a lot of grief from scientists for this one, all most everything is unfalsifiable. Things can't be proven false anymore than they can be prove true. Besides, if something were really true, it could never be proven false.
The emperical term should be "testable". Testable means that there are two or more possible measurable outcomes. It also must be tested comprehensively, or as comprehensively as possible. Mathematical science should be provable, mathematical logical demonstration detailed enough for others to follow.
Carnot is tested every time a new engine's efficiency is measured, not just its temperature.
Tom's quackery here has challenged nothing, and only demonstrated his own ridged denial of science, and embracement of quacks. Please be wary of quackery.
The first law of thermodynamics has been discovered from the laws of nature. No free energy yet found. No preputial motion contraptions of any kind. None yet have been found. Energy in, minus, energy out, equals, energy saved. Yes I'm still waiting.
The second law just points out that heat engine cycles, because of the first law, and other constraints, must be subjected to specific natural limits. You can't convert any heat to work unless some heat is rejected to a lower temperature. Yes again I'm still waiting, got to maintain an open scientific mind. Unlike Tom, whom throws it open to anything, including quackery, and closes it to valid science/mathematics.
Trusting the Carnot Theorem is valid science. Denying it is quackery. Why is it quackery, because I'm still waiting for a valid scientific challenge to it, or a contraption that does what scammers claim. And I'm tired of fraudulent claims.
.