Stirlingengineforum.com

Fool wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2024 4:15 am .

I figured you are too afraid to answer the following:

Which fraction is bigger, 1/3 or 1/5? Not a trick question.

Good luck.

.

That depends on what you're measuring.

1/3 of a quart = 10.7 ounces (rounded)
1/5 of a gallon = 25 and 3/5 of an ounce

This is what you don't understand.

Relevant to this discussion, are you measuring the heat supplied to the engine or "all the heat" down to absolute zero? Without applying your ratio to something real and keeping straight what the numbers are associated with in the real world your so-called "derivation" of the Carnot Limit number juggling is meaningless nonsense, as is the academic interpretation of the Carnot limit.

You (academics, bad at math with no common sense) add heat bringing the temperature from 300°K to 400°K

Calculate the ratio:

100 joules added = 1/4th of "all the heat"

Then you say only 1/4 of "the heat" is available to be utilized.

1/4 of 100 = 25%

Your so bad at math and completely lacking in common sense that you don't even realize how asinine that is.

It's just like applying the ratio to both the gallon (all the heat down to absolute zero or 400 joules) AND the quart (all the heat supplied or 100 joules) and think you're making sense.

25% of 400 joules is not the same thing as 25% of 100 joules. Or 1/4 of 400 joules is not the same thing as 1/4 of 100 joules.

The so-called "Carnot Limit" did not even originate with Carnot, or any other historic personage.

It's apparently a mathematical error in logic that somehow founds its way into textbooks around, maybe 1970 when the government got involved in approving educational literature.

.

1/4 or 1/5 of your brain still equals zero.

.

Jack wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 10:22 pm But what is heat in your theory then?
As I understand it, you propose that the fluid molecules are little magnetic balls basically. Then what does heat do to increase that magnetic field?
And how is it taken out by converting it to work in a stirling engine where the hotter molecules don't "travel" much?

Apparently, according to the Lennard-Jones potential model. All molecules attract,

The electrons attracted to the nucleus of the other particles.

But the electrons themselves repel, so when the molecules get close enough they repel.

Heat will cause electrons to jump to higher orbits which it seems, effectively increases the diameter of the .molecule and increases the repulsive forces causing the molecules to move further apart.

Cooling down, then, naturally would have the opposite effect. The electrons drop down closer to the nucleus and the molecules, to that degree attract more and move closer together.

The molecules, I imagine, loose energy without moving much in the same way the first steel balls in a Newton's Cradle transmits energy through the entire line through to the other end.

In a Stirling engine though, the "other end" is the piston, the only thing able to move, everything else, the other gas molecules and walls are "locked in" their positions.

The hot plate causes the gas molecules in direct contact with it to expand. The pressure is then transmitted through the entire volume of gas to the piston almost just as if the expanding molecules were in direct contact with the piston and transferring energy to it.

That would be why, or one reason why heat does not pass through a Stirling engine.

The heat hardly leaves the hot plate at all (relatively speaking. Though there is no doubt billions or trillions of gas molecules in direct contact with the hot plate) so only pressure is transmitted to the piston, which is basically just molecular repulsion between the gas molecules close to, or in direct contact with the piston and the molecules that compose the mass of the piston.

Though the general squeezing together of all the gas molecules (increase in pressure) causes a temporary elevation in temperature throughout all of the gas molecules. This "heat of compression" dissipates or disappears as the piston moves releasing the pressure, then cooling results as the piston momentum begins to allow the gas to expand as the piston continues outward.

So all the gas on the cold plate side, and the cold plate itself can actually grow colder than what it was at the start.

This may be a simplification, or not exactly 100% correct, as most theories or models are only an attempt at explaining or conceptualizing observations.

Factually, many of my experiments and observations of Stirling engines show the cold plate either remaining cold, or actually becoming colder rather than warmer or hotter.

It is generally agreed that the Lennard Jones potential model is a much more accurate model of gas behavior than the "ideal" gas kinetic theory of gas molecules being very far apart and non-interacting.

.

Tommy wrote:The heat hardly leaves the hot plate at all (relatively speaking. Though there is no doubt billions or trillions of gas molecules in direct contact with the hot plate) so only pressure is transmitted to the piston, which is basically just molecular repulsion between the gas molecules close to, or in direct contact with the piston and the molecules that compose the mass of the piston.

So, what you are saying is the molecules closest to the hot plate are the only ones heated, expanding, pushing on the next set, and so on to the piston...

So my question is, how do the molecules next to the hot plate, the only ones getting hot (an ignorant falsehood), swell/expand enough to double the volume of all the gas? Wouldn't all the molecules need to expand to twice their sizes to get double volume? Isn't it done by molecular motion, not molecular size.

Furthermore expansion can be combined with cooling. How does a bunch of molecules get colder and bigger? No, your theory doesn't hold up.

Molecules don't swell and expand that much, molecular motion relative to each molecule expands the gas. There is no limit to expansion caused by molecular motion.

Your theories lack cohesiveness.

The Lennard-Jones potential isn't used to model gasses when far above the boiling temperature velocity. The kinetic model must be used for those temperatures and densities.

.

Fool wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 8:50 am .

Tommy wrote:The heat hardly leaves the hot plate at all (relatively speaking. Though there is no doubt billions or trillions of gas molecules in direct contact with the hot plate) so only pressure is transmitted to the piston, which is basically just molecular repulsion between the gas molecules close to, or in direct contact with the piston and the molecules that compose the mass of the piston.

So, what you are saying is the molecules closest to the hot plate are the only ones heated, expanding, pushing on the next set, and so on to the piston...

So my question is, how do the molecules next to the hot plate, the only ones getting hot (an ignorant falsehood), swell/expand enough to double the volume of all the gas? Wouldn't all the molecules need to expand to twice their sizes to get double volume? Isn't it done by molecular motion, not molecular size.

Furthermore expansion can be combined with cooling. How does a bunch of molecules get colder and bigger? No, your theory doesn't hold up.

Molecules don't swell and expand that much, molecular motion relative to each molecule expands the gas. There is no limit to expansion caused by molecular motion.

Your theories lack cohesiveness.

The Lennard-Jones potential isn't used to model gasses when far above the boiling temperature velocity. The kinetic model must be used for those temperatures and densities.

.

You don't know what you're talking about.

.

If course not. That doesn't seem to stop you from writing here. As least my words are consistent with science. Your's are just wild guessing.

.

Fool wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 9:09 am .

If course not. ....
.

Another of your vile traits, incessantly pointing out other people's minor typos while your long rambling posts are full of the same, aside from being barely comprehensible illogical gibberish.

.

Dream on.

.

Fool wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 9:09 am .

If course not.... As least my words are consistent...

.

LOL...

.

That is very funny. Thanks for pointing it out. Should have read:

Of course not. That doesn't seem to stop you from writing here. At least my words are consistent with science, typos not withstanding. Your's are just erroneous wild guessing.

You are not helping here. I at least pointed out how things should be. You are sadly lacking correction, while very good at insult. Grow up. I pick on you because you pick on others, and continue to arrogantly spout incorrect ideas and blindly follow many over-unity thermodynamic scam artists. You still don't have a clue why claims of breaking the second law leads to it being a fraudulent claim of over unity. It is obvious. Yet you deny it. The second law is the biggest weapon against over unity quacks. The second biggest weapon is waiting for a working contraption. Claims of historic working contraptions just leave us waiting.

I'm still waiting for your butane refrigerator, back to back Stirling Engines, hot potato engine, combination heat pump and engine, etc...

.

.

Tom Booth wrote:Some time back I requested any references in support of the repeated assertion that molecules in gaseous form are NEVER attracted to each other anywhere above the liquefaction point.

https://www-archiv.fdm.uni-hamburg.de/b ... oints.html

Since the distance is very large, Coulomb's Law tells us that the force of attraction between the molecules is very small. In gases it is essentially zero.

Also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why-d ... e-pressure

.

Torque by itself does not break anything as long as there are smooth transitions and things keep moving (no sudden hard stops)

Most machinery shafts and gears have "safety" devices. A soft key in the shaft keyway that will sheer. I've replaced many dozens in lawnmowers where people hit a rock or something.

These boyancy machines hardly have any hard interface. Generators have slip, air is compressible.

Probably if you suddenly jammed a crowbar in a sprocket in the drivetrain something would break somewhere, (likely the crowbar would break your arm before any metal parts), but nothing is going to break under normal operation. Certainly you would not break the drive shaft.

Richard Feynman. Why.

https://youtu.be/36GT2zI8lVA

.

Torque is what twists things to the breaking point. Whether that torque is applied by impulse loading, or slow increase doesn't matter. Mass start up creates startup torque. Climbing a hill puts out constant constant torque. Running a generator at constant output, requires a constant torque. That torque is related to power out and rpm. Learn the equations, and how to use them.

If you learn them you will probably be asking yourself Why with more depth, as Feynman has suggested.

The buoyancy scams are claiming 100,000 watts at about 5 RPM's. That is a ludicrous amount of torque. In other words, hard to believe. You don't have any information that helps that claim. Your hand waving and guessing are providing nothing regarding this fact. Numbers are important.

.

Fool wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2024 7:55 am .

Torque is what twists things to the breaking point. Whether that torque is applied by impulse loading, or slow increase doesn't matter. Mass start up creates startup torque. Climbing a hill puts out constant constant torque. Running a generator at constant output, requires a constant torque. That torque is related to power out and rpm. Learn the equations, and how to use them.

If you learn them you will probably be asking yourself Why with more depth, as Feynman has suggested.

The buoyancy scams are claiming 100,000 watts at about 5 RPM's. That is a ludicrous amount of torque. In other words, hard to believe. You don't have any information that helps that claim. Your hand waving and guessing are providing nothing regarding this fact. Numbers are important.

.

You're annoyingly idiotic. "Breaking point" has nothing to do with the definition of torque, any more than horsepower is defined as crashing your car.

You really are some kind of mental case.