Stirlingengineforum.com

MikeB wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 5:03 am

Tom Booth wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2024 6:56 pm The relatively small amount of work that a heat pump converts into heat is minimal compared with the quantity of heat moved from the environment.

From what I've seen, current commercial heat pumps use a _lot_ of energy to pump a useful amount of heat - that's why the Government here is having to try to bully people into using them in preference to burning natural gas, as they cost only slightly less to run. And a shed-load more to buy and install.

Are you the same MikeB who busily rewrote history on the Talk Rational forum?

https://talkrational.org/index.php/topi ... #msg569775

Presumably.

That's kind of weird:

Reply #1332 – July 02, 2021, 07:31:29 AM

The next post:

Reply #1333 – June 25, 2022, 01:50:24 AM

The timestamp jumps from July 2021 to June '22 from post #1332 to #1333

That looks like up to about 11 months of posts gone missing.

I wonder what really happened.

Oh yeah, I forgot. I was there.

Basically the same thing happening here. The forum ruined by hacking, "Carnot limit" trolls and "spam" and the forum owner and moderators somehow not able to do anything about it.

Tom Booth wrote:You've provided crap; your own worthless opinions.

I've been nothing put patient and informative here. You complained that I was destroying your threads, while being insulting to me. So I started my own thread. You have now followed me in here and are still being insulting to many. Why?

Tom Booth wrote:I suppose solar dish Stirling engines (Infinia, Stirling Technologies etc.) never worked either?[\Quote]

I think they are being suppressed by their high installation cost, and maintenance. I think the only reason they were installed in the first place was a government supported tax incentive and funding. I think there have been unforseen issues that render them less cost effective. Work, yes they work. The government had great hopes for them. Probably just more expensive and maintenance prone than solar cells, which now have similar efficiencies.

Still there are some niche areas where Stirling Engines are likely to do well. Back country rainy cold heavily wooded stormy powerless areas of earth. Hybrid cars. Higher efficiency stationary fueled power plants. Back pack generators. Replacement of steam power. Space based nuclear. Perhaps more.

I also think that there is a lot of improvements that can be made to them to make them cheaper, more efficient, and higher powered. Configurations, materials, and fuels.

They still won't do as well as solid state solar cells, because they continue to be improved too. And the efficiency will never beat Carnot even though you keep bleating that despite your lack of evidence and insulting posting style.

Tom Booth wrote:But there it is, behind a guarded gate in a restricted area supplying the power to a US Army facility:

The government using the technology is hardly the government suppressing the technology. Please.

Locked and secured gate to protect it from vandals and thieves. Your conspiracy theory is just insulting and out of place in my thread. Start a new thread if you want to bleat that kind of fantasies. Your science fiction is not appreciated in my thread. Stop posting insults and your own concocted nightmares.

Tom Booth wrote:Are you the same MikeB who busily rewrote history on the Talk Rational forum?

This is totally off title here in this thread. For the record Tom, you appear to be producing the same ignorance and insulting posting style in the 'Talk Rational Forum' as you are here. Why?

Mike, Tom seems to think that with a COP of 4, 3, or 2, that 100 Watts moving 300, 200, or 100 Watts from the cold plate, that the 100 Watts of work is some how a "small amount of energy", "minimal", when compared to the amount of 300, 200, or 100.

I considered it 1/3, 1/2, or one to one.

Thanks for the inputs.

Tom Booth wrote:"Carnot limit" trolls and "spam" and the forum owner and moderators somehow not able to do anything about it.

I think the "trolls and spam" and hackers have zero, nothing, to do with the Carnot limit. Just thinking.

Fool wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 12:29 am .,.Let us know where you end up we'll be sure to visit there too.
...

Not if I can help it.

Awe... Where's the fun in that!

Fool wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 9:25 am Awe... Where's the fun in that!

Apparently trolling "Tom Booth" is how you get your kicks. Personally, I've got better things to do

As Goody said: "have a nice life".

Tom Booth wrote:You've provided crap; your own worthless opinions.

I've been nothing put patient and informative here. You complained that I was destroying your threads, while being insulting to me. So I started my own thread. You have now followed me in here and are still being insulting to many. Why?

Tom Booth wrote:I suppose solar dish Stirling engines (Infinia, Stirling Technologies etc.) never worked either?

I think they are being suppressed by their high installation cost, and maintenance. I think the only reason they were installed in the first place was a government supported tax incentive and funding. I think there have been unforseen issues that render them less cost effective. Work, yes they work. The government had great hopes for them. Probably just more expensive and maintenance prone than solar cells, which now have similar efficiencies.

Still there are some niche areas where Stirling Engines are likely to do well. Back country rainy cold heavily wooded stormy powerless areas of earth. Hybrid cars. Higher efficiency stationary fueled power plants. Back pack generators. Replacement of steam power. Space based nuclear. Perhaps more.

I also think that there is a lot of improvements that can be made to them to make them cheaper, more efficient, and higher powered. Configurations, materials, and fuels.

They still won't do as well as solid state solar cells, because they continue to be improved too. And the efficiency will never beat Carnot even though you keep bleating that despite your lack of evidence and insulting posting style.

Tom Booth wrote:But there it is, behind a guarded gate in a restricted area supplying the power to a US Army facility:

The government using the technology is hardly the government suppressing the technology. Please.

Locked and secured gate to protect it from vandals and thieves. Your conspiracy theory is just insulting and out of place in my thread. Start a new thread if you want to bleat that kind of fantasies. Your science fiction is not appreciated in my thread. Stop posting insults and your own concocted nightmares.

Tom Booth wrote:Are you the same MikeB who busily rewrote history on the Talk Rational forum?

This is totally off title here in this thread. For the record Tom, you appear to be producing the same ignorance and insulting posting style in the 'Talk Rational Forum' as you are here. Why?

Mike, Tom seems to think that with a COP of 4, 3, or 2, that 100 Watts moving 300, 200, or 100 Watts from the cold plate, that the 100 Watts of work is some how a "small amount of energy", "minimal", when compared to the amount of 300, 200, or 100.

I considered it 1/3, 1/2, or one to one.

Thanks for the inputs.

Repost to fix quote nesting.

I reread the beginning of this thread and it appears to be a good start on the subject. Sure it had some dropped explanations, misunderstanding of questions, typographical spelling errors, but generally moving along in cooperation.

Then it was suddenly trashed by Tom Booth's first post starting a false semantics battle about what physics and math are. Then on page two he brings in his false description of Carnot, and his poorly done and documented garage show, as if this website is his own personal blog.

Seven out of eight pages are filled with his misunderstandings and disregard for classical thermodynamics and scientific laboratory tools, charts, and techniques.

I see now that people have a choice of following main stream science, or the opinions and claims of a denier of most of science.

I may restart this thread with an improved opening post and restatement of questions asked and some better more thorough answers. And less equations. And hope it doesn't devolve into a selfish repetitive erroneous blog again.

A Google search yielded the following. I have no connection with any site but this one here. The following is their issues:

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/ ... hines-pmm/

PF wrote:The simple reason why discussion of PMMs is banned on PF is that PF discusses accepted science only, and by definition, PMMs violate some laws of science. “But”, you might ask, “why don’t you try a relaxed-rules sandbox where anything can be discussed?” Well, we tried that early in PF’s existence and there were several problems:
1, It attracted very low-quality discussion.
2, Despite the relaxed rules it required substantial moderator attention.
3, Enthusiastic would-be inventors are largely immune to learning/being taught, so they accomplished very little.
4, By definition, a PMM must violate some laws of physics, so we have no ability to analyze them.

.....

The belief is stronger than the desire to learn.

.....

Case in point, 3 pages of semantics battle ending in lockout:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/a ... rk.667129/

PF wrote:russ_watters Mentor A device that uses a heat pump to create a temperature difference to drive a heat engine, achieving a positive energy output is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics: a type 2 perpetual motion machine. We don't do perpetual motion machines here. Thread locked.

Another case in point at a different site, a 17 page PMM thread ending in lockout:

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/128 ... ncy-valid/

Ending quote:

SF wrote: On 2/9/2023 at 9:13 AM, Tom Booth said:
Do you wish to explore the alternative Tom Booth hypothesis as well?

!
Moderator Note

No, since this alternative has gone through 17 pages of you avoiding responses that disagree with you and ignoring the science presented. This is a science discussion forum, and we rely on both sides of an argument LISTENING to each other, otherwise you're just soapboxing, and nobody wants to hear THAT.

I wish there was something in your posts that made me think you might have a Eureka! moment, especially given the patient and instructional replies you've gotten, but you've shown that you're going to continue to double down and ignore attempts to teach you something.

Thread closed due to insufficient support, so please don't bring the topic up here again.

You have done it to this thread and this forum too. Please tread lightly.




https://dsimanek.vialattea.net/museum/physgal.htm



.

Tom Booth wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 5:20 am Are you the same MikeB who busily rewrote history on the Talk Rational forum?

https://talkrational.org/index.php/topi ... #msg569775

Presumably.

Nope. Big hint - that guy talks in Dollars, which is monopoly money to a Scot! (ie myself.)