Proell Effect

[Tom Booth]

.

Tom, your device as you describe, compresses the gas into the hot plate. It then switches to the cold plate and expands.

Not exactly,

First the extremely high heat and pressure that develops causes a rapid, explosive expansion. Then as expansion progresses and the gas rapidly cools, then the cold regenerator moves into place, at a 90° offset, same as a standard Stirling engine.

The problem with that is the cold gas is spread out over the entire cylinder and is away from the cold plate. The only time the entire gas is next to the cold plate is when it is compressed and hot.

Obviously, you still do not understand and probably never will.

The "entire gas" next to the cold plate "when it is compressed and hot" never happens, as already explained.

I'm sorry, though conceptually relatively simple, this is all apparently way over your head, as is the operation of a Stirling engine. You're incapable of escaping your 1820's Carnot "Law" indoctrination.

Maybe if you had three plates, hot, insulated, cold, then waved the cold one through the cold expanded gas.

A regenerator does not absorb cold. There is no need. Cold does not exist. It is merely the absence of heat. You can't collect cold in a regenerator by "waving" the regenerator through the cold gas.

Your description will produce zero power. It will require power input, just like a heat pump. And any generated heat differential will be trapped inside the machine. I assume you know that.

It would generate power output the same as any normal Stirling engine. It is functionally identical to a normal, standard Stirling engine.

[Tom Booth]

.

The Proell Effect comes about by mass flow from one temperature to a different, with associated pressure change. At constant volume. Quit adding a piston.

.

As usual, you're a complete ignoramus.

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis ... 698200.pdf

I suppose you think you know more about the Proell effect than the guy who actually coined the term.

As I said before, ignorance and arrogance is a bad combination. You habitually spew misinformation, putting your profound arrogance and ignorance on display. You should learn to check your facts more thoroughly before you post.

[Fool]

.

From your PDF file:

engines, incorporate constant Volume cooling and aspects of
(56) References Cited the “Proell Effect”...

"Constant Volume" ... Am I missing something here?

.

[Tom Booth]

.

From your PDF file:

engines, incorporate constant Volume cooling and aspects of
(56) References Cited the “Proell Effect”...

"Constant Volume" ... Am I missing something here?

.

The first word "ENGINES".

All the illustrations in the patent include power pistons.

Your whinning "Quit adding a piston" just shows your ignorance.

The Stirling cycle includes two constant volume processes, and also has a piston and the so-called "super classical cycle" engines in the patent that are supposed to utilize the Proell effect all have power pistons.

The experimental setup was for experimental purposes, it does not exclude the Proell Effect from real engines, on the contrary, it is meant to apply to real engines, including Stirling engines which Rauen refers to frequently.

How you manage to always get thing so wrong is a mystery. That's why I think you must be a chat bot programmed to be stupid and ignorant by design. No real person could be so consistently clueless.

[Fool]

.

I still don't know why you insist it needs a piston for constant volume. Whether it has a piston or not is moot.

.

[Tom Booth]

.

I still don't know why you insist it needs a piston for constant volume. Whether it has a piston or not is moot.

.

Now your just making shit up.

You're the one insisting it can't have a piston. I never said that the effect "needs" a piston.

I compared it with the Vuilleumier cycle.

When you cool a gas in one end of a cylinder the gas "contracts". Of course, you think that is impossible ("gas can only push" push push) so you could never believe it's a real effect anyway.

However, the contraction of the gas being cooled on on side or one end results in expansion of the gas at the other end of the cylinder.

Or maybe you could say the gas on the other end does "work" compressing the gas being cooled. At any rate, the gas in the cooled end shrinks in volume giving the gas in the other end room to expand, so the gas in the other end drops in temperature as a result of expansion.

This "secondary cooling" is beyond the reach of the "mean free path". It is NOT a result of any direct heat transfer or direct cooling.

Likewise if one end is heated, the gas in that end expands. That expansion "compresses" the gas in the other end causing the gas in the other end to heat up or rise in temperature as well though there is no direct heat transfer. The other side is beyond direct influence by collision between molecules.

Of course, you don't believe the gas molecules are densely packed enough or influence each other enough to transfer energy in such a manner, so the whole phenomenon is beyond your comprehension apparently. You think gas can only transfer energy by "bouncing".

Every characteristic of a gas that makes the Proell effect possible you deny exists at all. Though Vuilleumier recognized it in his 1918 patent

https://patents.google.com/patent/US1275507A/en

[Fool]

.

Somehow, this has gone from a claim of breaking the Carnot Limit, to me needing to prove what the Proell Effect is. Tommy, grow up. The piston is moot for any constant volume process. That means it can be gone, or if it's there it is not moving.

Can you have both a Proell Effect and a expansion effect at the same time? Yes. Both are present in a normal engine. It is now a question of significance.

I'm stretching out my neck a little when I say, 'the Proell Effect hinders the normal expansion and compression of the power piston, causing the cycle to typically have less power and efficiency." This can be observed by why the Essex Engine seems more powerful per size, than a similar engine with a cold power piston, (maybe). The effect is more pronounced when there is a,

larger working cold space, and smaller dead hot space,
than for a,
larger working hot space and smaller dead cold space.

I.E., it doesn't help the Essex, but it reduces the harm the effect has on the Essex over cold power piston engines, (if I'm reading it right). If dead air space could completely be eliminated, the Proell Effect would become zero, and the engine would be closer to the Carnot Limit. But still not over it. There probably isn't any way to benefit from it, just as there is no way to benefit from bearing friction.

.

[VincentG]

This graphic (cartoon - lol) says it all via comparing these 3 similar expansion processes (frames 3-4). Despite T given, Qin can only be surmised, but clearly something is awry due to this inconsistent PV work. Over the years, I've seen this irregularity pop up, but always dismissed it as a variation due to RA-GA modeling. However, while modeling cold vs hot PP, this anomaly popped up in clear sight.

Fool - this graphic may appear as sleight of hand or cherry picking, yet I thought you would quickly confirm PVT values and also conclude "Houston, we have a problem." How did you dismiss these Q vs W variations akin AB, AC, BC ???

Didn't want Matt's question to slip by unnoticed.

Please don't drag another thread down the toilet with incessant bickering.

[Fool]

.

If you analyze a Vuilleumier heat pump, you will notice two displacers. One running between hot and warm. And the other between cold and warm. It analyzes as a combined Stirling Engine running between hot and warm, with a heat pump/refrigerator running between cold and warm. The timing of the single piston is such that it produces an identical action to both a conventional engine and the heat pump. Don't listen to me check it out for yourself.

The Proell Effect is there but unnecessary for understanding or modeling the system. Sure it might be a percent or so better accuracy if modeled along with the bigger effect of compressive and expansive work, but there are other modeling problems that are more likely to cause larger errors. And better still, if dead space is reduced, ignoring the effect completely.

Matt I appreciate the work you've done mathematically showing this. It appears to be the 'hysteresis' talked about in other books. I think you've shown it is a bit more serious than than earlier figuring. Thanks.

.

[Fool]

.

Please don't drag another thread down the toilet with incessant bickering.

I hope that was directed squarely at Tom, as he constantly brings in off topic strawman comments, name calling and cursing. While I strive to get to the root of the science. Please point out specific problems.

I started a thread where he and I can discuss it fully. The gauge verses absolute pressure thread. He's welcome there to discuss anything. I think my patience with his errors, is exemplary.

.

[Fool]

.

Matt, I think most engineers put the power piston on the cold side to avoid hot piston rings, seals, and oil. I'm still curious if the effect could be countered by having a larger displacer chamber, like most flat plate LTD's that are available. Low ∆V.

.

[Tom Booth]

Please don't drag another thread down the toilet with incessant bickering.

Clearly "fool" IMO, has no interest in this topic and has been doing nothing but heckling Matt from the start, won't even watch the video Matt posted, going hysterical that not everyone agrees 100% with his antiquated "classical" viewpoint.

Unfortunately he misrepresents, mangles and twists anything I post here or anywhere else, and does the same with yours and Matt's posts.

If you reread this thread from the begining, I have been making constructive contributions to the topic, I think.

Fool has been dismissive and combative from the start. He drags down this entire forum. That is his entire goal and objective as he looks forward with glee to the forums demise. Why he will not be welcome on any subsequent forums I start.

If anyone doesn't like it and wants to interact with this TROLL, they can start and moderate a forum of their own.

With Fools attitude towards these topics, disrespect towards the forum owner and disrespect for other members who simply have different views, he has forfeited any privilege of participation on any future forum I have anything to do with.

[Tom Booth]

.

Please don't drag another thread down the toilet with incessant bickering.

I hope that was directed squarely at Tom, as he constantly brings in off topic strawman comments, name calling and cursing. While I strive to get to the root of the science. Please point out specific problems.

I started a thread where he and I can discuss it fully. The gauge verses absolute pressure thread. He's welcome there to discuss anything. I think my patience with his errors, is exemplary.

.

viewtopic.php?p=27303#p27303

viewtopic.php?p=27307#p27307

You've been dismissive of the subject from the start, making no constructive contribution to the topic.

As for your pressure gauge thread, enjoy your echo chamber.

[Fool]

.

I figured you'd shy away from a thread on real science. Until then I'll let you contemplate the mercury column barrometer.

.

[Tom Booth]

.

I figured you'd shy away from a thread on real science. Until then I'll let you contemplate the mercury column barrometer.

.

I only engage with you when forced to by your blatant misrepresentations and lies about me when you uninvited rudly intrude on a conversation. I wasted enough time with you on the The TRUTH? η = 1 – (Qc / Qh) = 1 – (Tc / Th) thread.

There you proved to be intentionally deceptive in your number juggling which was nothing more than a round robin of self referential nonsense. A complete waste of my time.

Enjoy your other new "Tom's engine' echo chamber as well

And.no, I'm not avoiding "real science" I'm avoiding YOU, (nothing but an incompetent, brainless pest and a TROL),, as much as possible.