Proell Effect

[matt brown]

As fin'l youtuber George Gammon says: it’s stiff drink time…

This 2003 Ken Rauen paper explains Proell Effect

https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/1 ... ie-52-pdf/

Proell Effect graphics.png (119.17 KiB) Viewed 6824 times

These figs. tell the story via Cv regen and Rauen has any info needed to grasp this concept in paper. This Proell Effect is what I was chasing in my “another Stirling gamma anomaly under the radar” thread where I discover conventional regen avoids accounting for required “thermal work” during regen.

A 300-450k.png (25.45 KiB) Viewed 6824 times

In my gamma cartoon (lol) cold PP volume is expanding and will require (a) PP sink input (ambient backflow) or (b) extra DP source input. If (a) then PP output is supplemented by ambient input similar any air tool driven by a shop compressor where an isothermal expansion at air tool lessens air needed for a given output vs an adiabatic expansion at tool. In this manner, ambient PP sink input achieves ideal gamma and ideal Carnot. If (b) then regen matrix is sized for conventional gas dynamics where additional unideal input can ‘overflow’ regen and pass thru to feed PP expansion whereby (b) output equals (a) output, but (b) requires more input (akin shop compressor example) and results in unideal gamma and unideal Carnot. In this graphic, I assume typical Schmidt conditions where P is equal throughout volumes. No doubt, a nobrainer, but here’s the head banger....when DP and PP volumes are considered as a single expanding volume (with equal pressure at all times despite pressure decline during expansion) then the gas density within DP and PP are expanding at the same rate despite DP and PP have different temperature and density while DP is a fixed volume vs PP is a variable volume !!!

gamma Cp regen loss.png (19.6 KiB) Viewed 6824 times

When I started this anomaly chase, I decided to share my chase. I might get nowhere, but after years of gaming thermo, I smelled a rat, so proceeded via common RA-GA and ideal gas law. My approach was trying to reconcile apparent output differences between Stirling cold PP and Essex hot PP which was a heads up thanks to Vincent sharing his Essex wildcard. Early on, I had this rat cornered in the expansion process, so I ignored complete cycle and focused on comparing various, but similar, expansion processes. I chased this rat down various rabbit holes until I finally realized that a Stirling gamma requires ‘work’ during regen. By mid Sept. I was trying to quantify this regen work loss, but choking on PVT values. That probably looked lame to most, but I could care less, since I already had the rat cornered, just not in the trap.

Cv regen.png (49.02 KiB) Viewed 6824 times

Here’s a singlet that likely slipped past everyone where I've found the Proell Effect via checking PVT values for simple Cv regen (but oblivious to buzz back then)...
"However, any half-ass sim should have raised red flags when run 1.0 Cv regen."

Rauen does a great job explaining this Proell Effect, but he does it via constant volume vs my crazy chase via variable volume (expansion process). I never considered Vuilleumier similarity until recently, since I always consider it as a heat pump (despite patent) with a sketchy cycle, impractical at best.

Here's a short video from when Rauen saw Proell Effect as means to achieve Super-Carnot engine (think ambient ‘assist’ of some type) but he’s now chasing totally ambient input engines…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lBDve65dAo

[Fool]

.

Man! Is that ever a great example of slippery slope logical fallacy reasoning. Sorry Matt. I couldn't finish wasting my time watching anymore. I didn't even get to the effect description promised.

I've heard the comment, "Absence of evidence, is not proof of non-existence.", so often that those that use it appear to erroneously believe it is 'proof of existence', (It is not.). It is proof, that demonstrating it's existence probably will be very difficult to show, and for sure requiring extraordinary evidence and data.

It also means that most scientists will ignore claims of its existence unless extraordinary evidence and data are presented very early in a report. And vehemently shunned if the report starts with slippery slope logical fallacies, or other errors.

.

[VincentG]

The following is an excerpt taken from
Stirling Engine Design Manual by William R. Martini
Second Edition January 1983
Prepared by NASA for U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Conservation and Renewable Energy
Office of Vehicle and Engine R&D

As the gas is transferred at zero total volume change from the cold
space to the hot space the pressure rises. This pressure rise results in a
temperature increase in the gas due to adiabatic compression.
Therefore, at the end of the transfer process the mixed mean gas temperature
in the hot space will be higher than 900 K. Point 3 is calculated for all the
gas to be exactly 900 K. Adiabatic expansion then takes place. Then by the
same process as just described, the transfer of the expanded gas back into the
cold space results in a lower gas temperature than 300 K at the end of this
stroke. The computational process must be carried through for a few cycles
until this process repeats accurately enough. This effect will be discussed
further in Section 5.1.6.

Unfortunately, it was not explained further in any certain terms(at least in my eyes). It makes rational sense to me. The challenge then is to put this effect to good use.

Matt is this now relevant to the Proel effect? I’ll watch your linked video tomorrow.

[Fool]

.

He says that the Proell Effect doesn't overcome the mechanical inefficiencies. To me that means the effect is nothing more than the observation of pumping losses. In other words, mechanical work input is directly related to the heating/compression and the cooling/expansion from pumping the gas back and forth. Windage. Most likely that will show up as a decline in overall efficiency. I.E., lower than the Carnot Limit predicts. It's just a Stirling Engine, nothing new.

Artificially increasing the temperature difference by the addition of V•∆P (Work?), won't make it anymore efficient than doing the same with V•∆P (Work!). What you put in as work to change the temperatures, you get back as work, no extras. Or less from excess rejected heat.

It kind of gets back to my request for someone to cycle a displacer regenerator with an electric motor, starting at T1=T2=Troom. Very likely a temperature spread with both above room temperature. But a spread nonetheless. (I think I created a new word, ha ha, 'Troom'. Useful in the following sentence. What's the Troom? Or if you are cold in a vehicle you can say, 'Troom, Troom, Troom'...)

Man, I hate the attitude people put out when jumping to erroneous conclusions about mistakingly believing they've beaten Carnot. Build the contraption, test the results, post the indicator diagram and efficiencies. I'll listen to the data, and not the attitude.

Ken Rauen has nothing more than a temperature anomaly. In other words, I'm still waiting for a working contraption, or an indicator diagram. Preferably both. His data started showing that, right as he cut off the lecture. I didn't listen to all the questions. Maybe someone pointed that out.

Claiming you've beaten Carnot, when you haven't, is a fool's errand.

.

[Tom Booth]

Google spits out additional links/video related to Kenneth M Rauen if the middle initial is included (all in quotes)

This patent for example:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US6698200B1/en

Only just begining to explore

"More search results" continues to turn up more...

[matt brown]

He says that the Proell Effect doesn't overcome the mechanical inefficiencies. To me that means the effect is nothing more than the observation of pumping losses. In other words, mechanical work input is directly related to the heating/compression and the cooling/expansion from pumping the gas back and forth.

Jeez Fool, you jumped to the 'real' world awful fast on this one, so let's return to the ideal world.

Ideally, there's no mechanical anything required to grasp Proell Effect...no mechanical input, windage, flow loss, etc. It's merely the application of the ideal gas law at work (sorry, couldn't resist pun). Despite my anomaly chase, I never calced any range of effect and simply concluded that's it increases with temperature difference. Remaining in the ideal world, the problem remains as to how someone incorporates this into an engine cycle since one displacer "cycle" returns gas to "start state".

It's just a Stirling Engine, nothing new.

Nope...the only Stirling with Cv regen is an alpha since gamma and beta have variable volume during regen (henceforth let Xv mean "variable volume"). In reality, I suspect Proell Effect is marginal when Cv, but becomes a major nasty for any cycle with Xv regen. During my anomaly chase, I often felt like a dog chasing his tail, but I continued. I found this effect during expansion process where Xv regen dwarfs girlie Cv regen, otherwise this would have remained under my radar.

Artificially increasing the temperature difference by the addition of V•∆P (Work?), won't make it anymore efficient than doing the same with V•∆P (Work!). What you put in as work to change the temperatures, you get back as work, no extras. Or less from excess rejected heat.

Maxwell's demon.png (61.08 KiB) Viewed 6741 times

The Proell Effect is similar Maxwell's Demon but where the partition moves and the door is a regenerator, but this is a poor analogy. I'd rather just consider Proell Effect an extension of the ideal gas law and avoid the "demon".

Ken Rauen has nothing more than a temperature anomaly.

This T anomaly shows itself during Cv regen, but the Q anomaly during Xv regen remains under the radar. What you're dismissing here is exactly how this relates to Xv regen (hot vs cold PP).

[matt brown]

The following is an excerpt taken from
Stirling Engine Design Manual by William R. Martini
Second Edition January 1983
Prepared by NASA for U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Conservation and Renewable Energy
Office of Vehicle and Engine R&D

As the gas is transferred at zero total volume change from the cold
space to the hot space the pressure rises. This pressure rise results in a
temperature increase in the gas due to adiabatic compression.
Therefore, at the end of the transfer process the mixed mean gas temperature
in the hot space will be higher than 900 K. Point 3 is calculated for all the
gas to be exactly 900 K. Adiabatic expansion then takes place. Then by the
same process as just described, the transfer of the expanded gas back into the
cold space results in a lower gas temperature than 300 K at the end of this
stroke. The computational process must be carried through for a few cycles
until this process repeats accurately enough. This effect will be discussed
further in Section 5.1.6.

Unfortunately, it was not explained further in any certain terms(at least in my eyes). It makes rational sense to me. The challenge then is to put this effect to good use.

Matt is this now relevant to the Proell effect? I’ll watch your linked video tomorrow.

Another good catch !!! You've become quite a thermo nerd (lol)

Over the years, I've read that numerous times and considered it a good explanation for elusive regen "flutter" (pressure spikes during HP and LP blows). In retrospect, I dropped the ball, but as you know by now, there's just so many issues in thermo that it's easy to miss details. Anyways, it's interesting that Martini, Rauen and others (I've found more) have all hit on this "Proell Effect" and used similar Cv regen example despite greater effect for gamma and beta due to variable volume during regen. Maybe they're all just simplifying the idea and leaving it for everyone to grasp on their own.

After I found the "Proell Effect", I recognized Rauen's name due to his patent

Rauen patent engine.png (37.06 KiB) Viewed 6731 times

Yep, love them 'ring' cams. There's only a handful of these simple schemes in PTO files vs massive hoard of complex schemes.

Rauen patent PV.png (22.44 KiB) Viewed 6731 times

Fool missed this PV for Rauen cycle...(1) isothermal expansion (2) Cv cooling via Proell effect (3) adiabatic compression. This will likely have Tom believing in PV plots due to isothermal AMBIENT input and no external sink.

[matt brown]

Ken Rauen has nothing more than a temperature anomaly.

Hmmm, I'd say this is something more than a temperature anomaly

Ken Rauen video.png (395.12 KiB) Viewed 6721 times

The same stuff I pondered during my anomaly chase, but I'd shy away from calling this Proell effect...'profound'. For now, I'd limit it's validity to grasping why any SE output is far lower than anticipated.

[Fool]

.

That PV diagram is why I think it is a lie. C to A. All gas in hot space. Very little in regenerator and cold space. With a constant pressure expansion at Pmax, goes from constant Th line after adiabatic expansion, to higher Tmax point. Is Th the Tmax? No? The temperature climbs during expansion to Tmax. Why? Claimed regenerator? Hot plate at Tmax? What? From where? Heat must go in during this process, a lot of heat.

Heat must come from a source that is massive enough to get all the gas to Th as the piston expands the gas at Pmax. Not going to happen from just a simple shaped cam shaft with no dwells.

Then power piston pauses, the thing that won't happen without dwells in the cam. It stays at Vmin the entire displacer stroke, and regenerator absorption.

Those two are irreversible processes. Less efficient than constant temperature, or adiabatic processes.

[Tom Booth]

This thing I posted on the "perpetual ideas" thread a long time ago utilizes the Proell effect, but I didn't know if any name for it at that time.

proel_effect.jpg (375.39 KiB) Viewed 6709 times

viewtopic.php?p=18503#p18503

[Fool]

.

It seems to me that the Proell Effect is nothing more than small parts of a collection of spaces and mechanical movements, getting hotter and colder from the work of expansion and compression. It's like a bicycle pump getting hot at the bottom from compression, and cold on top from expansion.

Both dissipating fairly quickly to either Th, Tc, or Troom. Gain of entropy. The hot bottom of the pump being detrimental to the pumping. The cold top being beneficial to bringing in the next volume. That gives a net zero zero gain or loss. Yes of course, mius the heat dissipated to or from the room. A regenerator here would add complexity to improve nothing.

.

[VincentG]

The test results seem pretty clear to me. I think they were just too caught up in the regenerator. It seems the effect is being wasted on the regenerator while it should instead be used to reduce the amount of heat that needs to be transferred through the hot plate from the original heat source.

Instead of looking at it as a further increase and decrease in temperature, look at it as reducing the energy transfer demands of the sinks.

This is from Matt's link where the author addresses possible criticisms.
 

• Normal behavior for expansion or compression
caused by the displacer’s suction or compression
explains the anomalous results.


Since the hypothesized effect is not present in
constant pressure conditions as verified experimentally with an open vent on the hot side, and
constant pressure conditions still have the ideal
gas displacer suction and compression effects on
the cold side, a lack of the anomalous T drop
eliminates the purported “masking effect” of
normal gas behavior.
No anomalous temperature changes are observed
when the displacer is stroked while the system is
in static, thermal equilibrium, being entirely at
room temperature. Since the ideal gas behavior
applies whenever the displacer is stroked, regardless of temperatures in the apparatus, the lack of
a temporary temperature change with the
stroking of the displacer when the apparatus is in
thermal equilibrium also eliminates the purported masking effect of normal gas behavior. What
is seen in Figures 8 through 10 may be due to
normal gas behavior, but cannot explain the
results of Figures 11 through 13

[Fool]

.

Thanks Vincent.

I question the part just before the red text, that says: '... verified experimentally with an open vent ...'.

The tests should be done both open and closed vent. Right? Were they?

It should also be done at several hot and cold temperatures and spreads. Right? Were they?

.

[VincentG]

They say the effect was not present with an open vent. It was only present with a sealed system and overall constant volume.

I agree it should have been done at different temperatures, but that is really splitting hairs, as it's hard to imagine that the effect could be isolated to the selected temperatures.

This effect is what I suspected all along, and I don't see how it should come as a surprise. If gas is rapidly heated at constant volume, the increase in pressure should cause a cascading effect that subsequently increases temperature further.

While there is no reduction in volume, expecting the gas molecules to know the difference between the walls getting closer to them, or them getting closer to the walls, seems odd.

[Fool]

.

The gas is just responding to pressure and temperature differences. The gas doesn't respond to the volume. Volume change just dictates pressures and temperatures. There is a response to moving walls, as they bounce off.

The gas knows nothing of load, except for the pistons response to the load, slowing or accelerating.

.