Ted Warbrooke's Stirling 1: Question

[Alphax]

Tom,

[7]

Too much time and expense for nothing, and not much incentive to invest the necessary R&D, because a centuries old technology is likely unpatentable, or the patent wouldn't be worth much.

There is incentive to invest in Stirling engine R&D, and it is actively being done. However, it is highly applications specific and is (from what I have seen) often focussed on cryogenics and related areas. These tend to be relatively small devices, not power output devices.

Most of the useful research relevant to Thermal Lag engines that I have seen so far tends to fall into this category. The fact that there doesn't seem to be what you might call an accepted "general theory" of how a Thermal Lag engine works isn't a hinderance, and the name 'Thermal Lag" engine tends not to be used much either.

[Alphax]

Tom,

[8]

You can still find scientific articles explaining why it is impossible for a heat engine to operate without a flywheel

Yes. They are wrong, as is easy to demonstrate.

This is actually the most important discovery of all as far as Thermal Lag engines are concerned. That is because it proves they are self-phasing oscillators and do not need mechanical linkages to achieve brute-force mechanical displacement of the working fluid.

[Alphax]

Of all the Ted Warbrooke Stirling-1 types of Thermal Lag engines on Youtube, one in particular stands out (in my opinion).

It is the one built by Chuck St. Louis. The only information I can find on it is in the video, which shows a superbly made engine running super-smoothly at about 1000 rpm. The engine uses a crank-balance and flywheel. The cold end is very clever and very simple, piston and cylinder being made of steel and lapped to perfection (he stresses the perfectness of the piston lapped fit).

Interestingly..... it runs perfectly well with NO wire wool regenerator at all ..... so where, exactly, is that thermal lag taking place??? (I had assumed a lot of it was to do with the regenerator, but apparently that may not be true). But it runs better (faster) with it in. Notice there is a restriction in the steel cylinder insert tube that slides into the glass tube 9which appears to be held and gas tight with electricians tape).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QcP6EgHUEQ

[Tom Booth]

Of all the Ted Warbrooke Stirling-1 types of Thermal Lag engines on Youtube, one in particular stands out (in my opinion).

It is the one built by Chuck St. Louis. ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QcP6EgHUEQ

Not to down play anything, necessarily, that engine runs smooth as silk, however, IMO that (probably) has more to do with precise balancing than anything else.

A small engine of the type (thermal lag etc generally) very rarely bothers with counterbalancing the crank. I don't think I've ever seen any IC engine that could do without it, and for good reason.

I worked for years as a small engine mechanic, and a good percentage of the mowers that came in had balancing issues; a nic in the blade, a missing fin on the flywheel, even just a build up of grass residue and the vibration can become intolerable, same with anything rotating at high rpm. car tires etc.

The number of times I've had my tires balanced because the front end would shake like mad on the highway, all for lack of a relatively tiny lead weight on the rim, a bit of mud inside the wheel etc.

My little red engine, and most others of the type will vibrate right off the table at high speed. Likely counterbalancing the crank would resolve the problem, but the balancing is so critical, it would need to be carried out on every flywheel, and every crankshaft on every engine produced.

More or less routinely, no tire is put on a car, no blade on a lawnmower, etc. etc. without first being precisely balanced...

Except of course with cheap mass produced toy engines, so, I don't think it is any mystery why that particular engine runs so perfectly smooth.

I've spent hours and hours, year after year, just balancing lawn mower blades from off shaky mowers, by simply sharpening one side, one pass of the sharpening stone more than the other side, if even that, going back and forth, taking off less and less each time, till perfectly balanced.

https://youtu.be/d5bzlDNsGfI

[Alphax]

Yep

Anything that spins spins smoother when balanced. I used to fly model aircraft and everything runs a lot better when the propeller is properly centred and properly balanced....similar to the lawnmower blade only between magnets (prop clamped in a balanced alloy centering chuck) for frictionless balancing.

The other feature of St. Louis's engine is he lapped the steel piston and cylinder to get a perfect low friction fit. I'm sure thats a big help too!

[Bumpkin]

That particular engine type is the one I feel most comfortable to say of the thermal lag source, “I get it.” Which is not to say I’m right, but here goes... —The nozzle directs a stream through the heating chamber without contacting the cylinder itself or mixing (too much) with the surrounding air. It’s not really “Laminar,” just close enough to keep from contact or mixing until it reaches the end of the heating chamber where it has to contact and mix. The volume of the stream at that point coincides with (somewhat) the end of the compression stroke, so its inlet stops but the stream inertia continues and a toroidal mixing/contact flow period follows. I’ve never seen much similar magic at the cooling end but have heard that the piston unshrouding the cylinder causes somewhat of a timed effect.

Anyway I feel comfortable assuming that’s what’s going on in this particular version, even though some other engines seem to fly in the face of such a premise.

Bumpkin

[Tom Booth]

The reason I think the "Carnot limit" issue is so important is that it has had a strong influence on heat engine design for more than a century and carries with it certain assumptions that are never questioned.

It dictates that heat, after powering an engine has to be "let out" somewhere. So the assumption is, a sink is necessary, so, a sink is always provided, doing otherwise would be unthinkable. A Stirling engine absolutely requires a temperature difference, a source and a sink. Everybody knows that right? Everybody accepts that. It is the first thing everybody learns. Some form of cooling system is an absolute necessity, if not water cooling than air cooling, and if no cooling system is obvious, and the engine still runs, some cooling system is assumed. The heat MUST be going SOMEWHERE.

I don't think I agree that a "thermal lag" running without a flywheel proves that "brute force displacement" is possible without a flywheel.

It isn't brute force displacement, IMO.

It is simply oscillation. "Adiabatic bounce".

The heat used to drive the engine is just that, USED, or used up. As a result the engine returns to it's starting position, WITHOUT sensible heat loss. ALL the heat is converted, not "let out" to a sink but converted to mechanical motion.

The "Carnot efficiency limit" alleges that this is absolutely impossible, that only a very small fraction of the heat can be converted.

So, the solution to a poor running engine?

Add a bigger heat sink! Get rid of more heat at the "cooling end" faster!

IMO precisely the opposite of what is needed.

[Alphax]

Tom,

I don't think I agree that a "thermal lag" running without a flywheel proves that "brute force displacement" is possible without a flywheel.

I think you've picked up the opposite meaning to the one I intended!

The sentence is supposed to convey the idea that in a conventional (Stirling) engine the displacer is pulled around the cycle by the crank. That is the reference to "brute force" - it means the displacer is taking energy from the system in order to provide phase and timing (to move the fluid around). This is what Peter tailer described as the limiting factor of Stirlings tin general - the time it takes for the fluid to exchange heat during the cycle. In contrast, the Thermal Lag uses this time to drive the engine, which consequently automatically self-regulates the frequency of "bounce" without needing a displacer to do it. The time taken to transfer the heat becomes the useful driving force in the Thermal Lag rather than the engine having to expend energy dragging the displace through the cycle (the "brute force" approach).

Hope thats clearer now.... also, I would just stick to the word "bounce" rather than describing it as "adiabatic" bounce. It may not be purely adiabatic, it might be partially adiabatic, partially isothermal or largely isothermal. The discussion on that one could run on for a long time but would be a bit pointless since it is pretty difficult to measure.

[Alphax]

Tom,

I'd just forget all about Carnot.

One point, though - nothing to do with Carnot - is that your statement:-

ALL the heat is converted, not "let out" to a sink but converted to mechanical motion.

..... is not true. All the heat is, sadly, NOT converted to work (mechanical motion). Basically work can be fully converted into heat, but unfortunately you cannot fully convert heat into work - there is a "direction" to the conversion resulting in loss and waste..

Looked at another way, you cannot build an engine that works on a cycle and produces no other effect but converting heat into work.

[Tom Booth]

Well adiabatic and isothermal are conceptually diametrically opposite, in terms of the question "where does the heat go?" that powers the engine. It has ramifications in relation to design considerations.

If isothermal, the assumption is that heat is dissipated to a sink to maintain a constant temperature during compression, allowing the piston to return. If adiabatic, the implication is no heat is dissipated to a sink. In that case heat leaves the engine not as "heat" but as "work", so dissipation to a sink is unnecessary, even detrimental.

Well, it COULD BE both, is the current prevailing compromise known as the "Carnot limit", but it could never be ALL adiabatic, never ALL heat converted to work, never 100% utilization of the added heat, at best, only maybe 25% or whatever is calculated from the ∆T but 100% heat utilization would mean that the cold side is at Absolute Zero, which makes people think the colder the sink the better, remove as much heat as possible as quickly as possible, which recourse IMO, just saps energy from the engine, so the idea that Stirling engines are inefficient is self-perpetuating.

A wrong theoretical foundation leads to bad design which appears to confirm the original assumption.

There is so much prejudice against the idea of 100% efficiency, even experimental evidence is ignored, or actually just assumed flawed without examination.

That any heat engine could exceed "Carnot efficiency" is just dismissed offhand. That isothermal heat dissipation is absolutely necessary is firmly insisted upon as a physical law of nature.

Evidence to the contrary is deemed inadmissable.

Edit: Do you know by personal experience, by empirical evidence of any kind, that the statements in your last post are factual?

No offense but I don't think so. It is just a centuries old assumption, continually parroted, without a shred of evidence.

[Alphax]

Tom,

Edit: Do you know by personal experience, by empirical evidence of any kind, that the statements in your last post are factual?

Yes. The entirety of thermodynamics is empirically derived and is based entirely on measurements of ordinary things and subsequent interpretations (just as you yourself are trying to do) of how these ordinary things actually behave. Most of the progress (in thermodynamics) comes from competitive attempts to make ever more efficient steam engines.

There is a VAST body of evidence and literature that converges on current thermodynamics and it is exceptionally successful in predicting outcomes of experiments and the construction of a wide range of technical functional systems. Not least of these achievements is the fact that thermodynamics has directionality - the asymmetry of time and the dissipation toward ever more random outcomes (entropy) and disorder. Those concepts are easily tested experimentally.

Here's the thing, Tom. No-one minds that you don't accept aspects of thermodynamics. After all, science does change its position and you might have a point. But, the onus is on you to explain why the presently accepted theory is wrong - it is not on the consensus to justify to you why they are right. That is how science works - it is up to you to advance your theory, with testable proof to support your ideas!

And, if you were able to do that - to put up a convincing explanation of why the status quo (thermodynamics) is wrong - then you would become famous, rich, and have at least one Nobel prize and a few University buildings named after you!

That isn't an exaggeration, by the way. If you could formally express (in conceptual terms and basic mathematics) and also prove the things that your gut instincts are telling you then it would be a Very Big Deal indeed in the world of science! You cannot expect to alter the scientific world's grasp of thermodynamics with attracting an overwhelming amount of interest!

[Tom Booth]

Tom,

Edit: Do you know by personal experience, by empirical evidence of any kind, that the statements in your last post are factual?

Yes. The entirety of thermodynamics is empirically derived and is based entirely on measurements of ordinary things and subsequent interpretations (just as you yourself are trying to do) of how these ordinary things actually behave. Most of the progress (in thermodynamics) comes from competitive attempts to make ever more efficient steam engines.

There is a VAST body of evidence and literature that converges on current thermodynamics and it is exceptionally successful in predicting outcomes of experiments and the construction of a wide range of technical functional systems. Not least of these achievements is the fact that thermodynamics has directionality - the asymmetry of time and the dissipation toward ever more random outcomes (entropy) and disorder. Those concepts are easily tested experimentally.

Here's the thing, Tom. No-one minds that you don't accept aspects of thermodynamics. After all, science does change its position and you might have a point. But, the onus is on you to explain why the presently accepted theory is wrong - it is not on the consensus to justify to you why they are right. That is how science works - it is up to you to advance your theory, with testable proof to support your ideas!

And, if you were able to do that - to put up a convincing explanation of why the status quo (thermodynamics) is wrong - then you would become famous, rich, and have at least one Nobel prize and a few University buildings named after you!

That isn't an exaggeration, by the way. If you could formally express (in conceptual terms and basic mathematics) and also prove the things that your gut instincts are telling you then it would be a Very Big Deal indeed in the world of science! You cannot expect to alter the scientific world's grasp of thermodynamics with attracting an overwhelming amount of interest!

I ask for empirical evidence, one experiment performed at ant time by anyone, in all the history of the world that ever demonstrated that a Stirling engine can only utilize at most the amount of heat input specified by the Carnot efficiency equation.

That is, put in 1000 Jules, and for a typical "coffee cup" Stirling, only 200 Jules can be utilized, the other 800, well, it goes through to the sink.

Who did the experiment that established this? What were the actual measurements? Where is the supporting data? Who did any additional experiments to verify the original findings?

I've searched high, I've searched low. I've scoured the literature, studied the entire history, examined the mathematics.

There never was any experiment or measurement or verification whatsoever.

I've done dozens of experiments. The Carnot theorem's predicted outcome is always wrong. The expected result is always contrary to the actual outcome. My experiments have been posted all over. The methodology and outcomes are perfectly clear, anyone can follow up with their own experiments, but nobody bothers. The thermo experts on the various Science and Physics forums have no answers or explaination, or empirical evidence to contradict my outcomes. All they can do is ban discussion of the matter.

Your statements above are nothing more than empty rhetoric, as far as I can see.

Where is all this empirical evidence and predicted experimental outcomes you allege are available.

Provide, please, just one experiment that ever established the Carnot efficiency equation based on empirical evidence or experimental outcomes.

There is no such thing.

It is all derived from Carnot's water wheel "analogy" that he took all too literally, which he then recanted on, when, towards the end of life he realized that heat is not some mysterious fluid, but Instead, simple kinetic energy.

Carnot efficiency has no basis of support in empirical experimentation, it never did, and I dare say, never will.

It's only basis is the failed Caloric theory.

Anyway, there is nothing special about the Thermal Lag, other types of Stirling engines run without a flywheel as well.

[Alphax]

Tom,

Forget Carnot. He is a little bit like Galileo - he got there first, but didn't get things quite right first time (that is hard to do - even Einstein and Newton made mistakes). The world of thermodynamics has moved on since then, using Carnot's work as a starting point.


You misunderstand the basis of science, I suspect. In fairness to you, yours is quite a common misconception. You would like, it seems, a scientific proof of thermodynamics. There are no such things as "scientific proofs" - of anything (including thermodynamics).

Proofs (in general, of many theorems) do exist in the rather abstract worlds of mathematics and in logic, which are closed and self-consistent, self-contained systems of propositions (arguments, if you prefer that word). Hence we have the First, Second and Third Laws of Thermodynamics which stand as Proofs in the world of mathematics.

Science, on the other hand, is not based on "proofs", it is based on evidence.

So, science and proofs are two different things.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional - not fixed and certain. That is the part that many laypeople struggle to understand. The currently accepted scientific understanding (of anything at all, including thermodynamics), is simply the best available explanation for it amongst all the available alternative explanations.

Scientific views, therefore, change over time as newer and better explanations and evidence are accumulated.

[Alphax]

Lets now talk about you, Tom.

You have an idea that could change thermodynamics and Stirling engine design forever. Specifically, you have said that you think that a Stirling engine could be 100% efficient. That is a bold position for you to adopt. You say:-

There is so much prejudice against the idea of 100% efficiency, even experimental evidence is ignored, or actually just assumed flawed without examination.

That any heat engine could exceed "Carnot efficiency" is just dismissed offhand. That isothermal heat dissipation is absolutely necessary is firmly insisted upon as a physical law of nature.

No one is prejudiced against the idea of 100% efficiency, rather it is your job to explain why 100% efficiency is possible. You have not done that. Asserting something (which is what you are doing with your 100% efficiency concept) does not make it correct - unless you can back it up with either evidence or theory. Preferably strong evidence and sound theory!

No one is saying that you can not make a a heat engine that can exceed "Carnot efficiency". But you have not made such an engine, nor have you shown us your evidence or any theorem to indicate why a heat engine can exceed "Carnot efficiency".



Your ideas, Tom, are alternative explanations amongst many. You might be right. You might be wrong. But it is for you to explain your ideas and formulate them them to improve the science of thermodynamics and the performance of Stirling engines.

I for one look forward to your explanation. Hint: - stop saying everyone else is wrong and start showing you are right.

[Tom Booth]

Science, IMHO, does not consist of making up some preposterous theory out of whole cloth, then promulgating the same, as universal law, insisting it is absolute truth and it is up to others to prove it wrong.

Yet, that is the historic progression of the alleged "Carnot Limit".

Not based on any observation. Not based on experiment, devoid of any common sense. Without any theoretical justification, no coherent mathematical proof, nothing whatsoever, but Carnot's fanciful idea that heat, like water, flowed through an engine. That a "fall" in temperature is exactly the same as a fall of water that powers a water wheel, so that engine efficiency is determined by, and ONLY by the "height of the fall", or the ∆T.

The proposition is a trap, because the temperature difference is declared to be the ONLY determinant of efficiency. Therefore by that definition of efficiency, this imagined Carnot efficiency limit can not be exceeded, because the temperature difference will always be the temperature difference, irregardless of the engines actual heat utilization or mechanical efficiency.

It is like saying "Alphax, your height can never exceed the six times the length of your foot. Infact the height of no human being can ever exceed six times the length of their foot."

So, as people are paraded through the door, their feet are measured, and by that measure their maximum height is supposedly established, with no actual measurement of height being performed.

Well, here is John Smith, he has small feet, only 10 inches long, but he's 6'3"

If "the law" that has been established is that John Smith can be no more than 60 inches tall if his feet are only ten inches, how do we establish his actual height?

Well the "LAW" says, height is determined by the length of the foot, so we measure his foot.

Sure enough, his foot is ten inches, therefore John Smith can be no more than 60 inches. John Smith cannot be more than 5 foot tall.

You cannot disprove Carnot efficiency on its own terms.

If you calculate the alleged "Carnot efficiency" of any engine, it can never exceed "Carnot efficiency" as the only measure of Carnot efficiency is the temperature difference, which is not any actual measure of actual efficiency. The temperature difference is just the temperature difference

Well, the issue of John's height can be solved by just measuring John's actual height. His feet are only 10" but his height is 6'3".

Advocates of the "established science" however, simply refuse to take an actual measurement. Refuse to extend a ruler from the floor to the top of John's head. "That's not how it's done, you don't understand science, height can never exceed 6 times foot length"

I find no experiment was ever performed establishing this Carnot limit.

So I do a few common sense experiments. Put some heat to a Stirling engine and do some actual measurements.

I find my engine can run for hours on scalding hot water and the temperature of the "sink" does not rise, but remains cool at room temperature.

"That doesn't prove anything". I'm told. "It just shows that the heat sink is doing its job! You fool!"

Last time I heard, heat transfer requires an actual temperature difference. For heat to transfer from the cold side of the engine to the ambient surroundings, the temperature of the cold side would have to be higher than the ambient.

"That would violate Carnot!", "You must be doing something wrong", general confusion and hysteria.

OK, so do your own experiment then.

"the onus is on you... blah blah blah" "This discussion is closed" (discussion locked).

That's all I ever get, after putting my own time and money into buying a bunch of engines and carrying out a bunch of experiments on my own time at my own expense.


No Nobel Prize.

No wing of any university.


The experimental evidence, though clearly presented, is simply ignored.

I've provided "testable proof" or evidence in abundance. It is simply ignored, not only ignored but banned, no discussion allowed.

The "foot to height ratio limit" was never scientifically established. It is the same with the Carnot efficiency limit. It was never scientifically established. It continues to be perpetuated by ignoring all the John Smiths walking around.

Anyway, IMO there is no legitimate reason to suppose that Ted Warbrooke's Stirling 1 cannot be scaled up. I think it would be a good project and I will probably do just that, among other things, once I get my shop set up.

I could care less about "Carnot efficiency" beyond the observation that it has been used as a weapon to attack and discredit me and my research, repeatedly, for many years. Giving any attention to the subject at all has been necessitated as a matter of self defense, after repeated accusations of ignorance in regard to science and/or mathematics, lack of intelligence, education, etc. Or worse, deception or fraud, manufacturing evidence, being a perpetual motion crank etc.

People clobber me over the head with Carnot, then complain when I examine the subject rationally and objectively, using actual science. "Forget Carnot" .

Tom,

I'd just forget all about Carnot.

One point, though - nothing to do with Carnot - is that your statement:-
ALL the heat is converted, not "let out" to a sink but converted to mechanical motion.
..... is not true. All the heat is, sadly, NOT converted to work (mechanical motion). Basically work can be fully converted into heat, but unfortunately you cannot fully convert heat into work - there is a "direction" to the conversion resulting in loss and waste..

Looked at another way, you cannot build an engine that works on a cycle and produces no other effect but converting heat into work.

You suggest I forget all about Carnot, then quote me a version of the second law that originated with Carnot.

Obviously no experimental evidence to support the "Carnot limit" is available, or you, or some one of the thousands of others who've read my posts would simply put the evidence on the table, rather that inundating me with all this kind of hyperbolic, evasive, side stepping avoidance of the subject. "Science isn't about proof" excuse making

The supposed efficiency limit, in your words: "you cannot fully convert heat into work" is a house of cards without any foundation. It can be proven false with very simple, straightforward experiments. But adherents to the idea of such an efficiency limit simply refuse.