Sippy Bird Experiments.

[matt brown]

The point is, gas particles DO have forces of attraction that brings them together even above "escape velocity". Even as gases, not liquids or solids. The kinetic model of gases moving in straight lines without ever influencing each other, without mutual attraction and repulsion is a convenient "idealization" for simplifying some mathematical approximations but is mostly fiction. Actual gas molecules do have attraction, do "contract" or condense leaving a vacuum, even inside a rigid container under the right conditions, they do not automatically "expand to fill the container" if attractive forces dominate.

But, I could be wrong

Boltzmann and others worked out various distribution theories that appear valid. Under STP conditions nearly everything is "expanding to fill the container"...even must solids are slowly evaporating into the atmosphere when exposed, we just don't live long enough to witness this. Most common liquids automatically "expand to fill the container" similar 1/2 gal of liquid in 1 gal can, but cap limits "expansion" via partial pressure.

The drum "implosion" appears to happen very suddenly without warning, causing shock, screams and gasps in the observers, so, maybe somebody should attach a pressure gauge to the drum and find out.

The drum implosion is stress relief which is always more dramatic when the drum is stronger.

[Tom Booth]

The point is, gas particles DO have forces of attraction that brings them together even above "escape velocity". Even as gases, not liquids or solids. The kinetic model of gases moving in straight lines without ever influencing each other, without mutual attraction and repulsion is a convenient "idealization" for simplifying some mathematical approximations but is mostly fiction. Actual gas molecules do have attraction, do "contract" or condense leaving a vacuum, even inside a rigid container under the right conditions, they do not automatically "expand to fill the container" if attractive forces dominate.

But, I could be wrong

Boltzmann and others worked out various distribution theories that appear valid. Under STP conditions nearly everything is "expanding to fill the container"...

Except around 0°C water vapor condenses on my glass of ice tea.

None of the gases that comprise our atmosphere appear to be "expanding to fill the container" or we wouldn't have an atmosphere. Gases would be distributed evenly throughout the universe, nore would there be any galaxies, planets, liquids or solids, that all condensed out of the "molecular cloud", so the cosmologists assert anyway.

[Fool]

As said before, "efficiency" is a term with various different applications, meanings and definitions. I've never gotten a clear answer about what "efficiency" the so-called Carnot Limit equation uses, or is supposed to represent, which comes in handy for you 2nd Law advocates who can then change the definition willy nilly to suit your argument at any given time

Because Tom Booth can't follow simple definitions of efficiency, the rest of us aren't allowed to use it in any equations... Many people understand it. It's easy to follow. Definitions are given. Your inabilities have been demonstrated often here. Proves nothing. Zero cohesive mathematics from you. Take some college level math courses, or even highschool level math courses. Get good instruction.

OK, please answer this:

Does "Carnot efficiency" include friction as part of the "rejected" so-called "waste heat" or not?

If you can find an authoritative reference I'd be very grateful.

Likely though, I could find you as many that say the opposite.

Supposedly the Carnot engine discounts friction, so logically so does the "Carnot limit" though many references include it as part of the heat "rejected".

If so, how can "friction" be precisely calculated by the ∆T?

Please resolve this, if you can, as I've seen as many references say one opinion as the other, and I think you have flip flopped on the subject as well.

Argument from authority is a logical fallacy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

I hope you will notice the contradicting points in that web page. It's a logical fallacy but, "likely to be correct if the authority is a real and pertinent intellectual authority". When authorities appear to clash using them is definitely a fallacy. Even though we are not going to put forth any data about clashing authorities or if they even are an authority, let us not use them for this discussion.

We are going to have to come to a conclusion on this using mathematics, logic and definitions.

Definition: The Carnot limit is defined as n=(Th -Tc)/Th. For ideal cycles, real cycles, cycles drawn on a PV diagram, even measured indicator.diagrams, and measured heat in and work output, to be the perfect maximum efficiency that could ever be expected from a perfect heat engine running in a cycle, with temperature limits Th and Tc. It must have a cycle that starts at a specific pressure, and volume, which also is a specific temperature, and it must also have a set cyclic working specific gas mass open or closed system. In other words the path drawn on a PV diagram must start and end at the same point and enclose a smooth area with zero breaks.

Yes it is my description in my own words as to what the definition of a Carnot limit is limited to. Right or wrong it gives a footing for our discussion. We can discuss any differences we may have on this definition. We may discuss any apparent deviations from this definition that might crop up in the following discourse.

Use the following for a 'more' authoritative description:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot% ... odynamics)

It boils down to the same equation for 'n' efficiency.

Mathematics: From the above definition the only mathematics for the Carnot limit is: n=(Th -Tc)/Th. That's it. Case closed. Even though there can be tons of mathematical calculations leading up to that equation, the end result is that simple equation.

Logic: That equation has only efficiency as the dependent variable and temperatures as the independent variable. It doesn't have friction in it. In fact it doesn't have either of the two thermodynamic variables pressure or volume in it. It is devoid of size, windage, pumping losses, pressure, heat, heat in, heat out, internal energy, displacer shape pancake or sausage, direction of rotation, North or South, up stream, down stream, kinematics, computers, PV path shape, you get the point. Friction is not a variable.

The Carnot efficiency is only dependent on temperature and the binding definition. Definition? Whoa, slow down. Yes the definition limits it to systems that cycle.

At this point I'd like to compare it to the maximum sized house that can be built from a single sheet of plywood. In the ideal realm the sphere is the shape with maximum volume to minimum material or surface area. So we equate the surface area of plywood 4'x8', to the surface area of a sphere 4πr^2, to get the radius, then calculate volume of the sphere, 4/3πr^3. Of course it is recognized that, it is impossible to build a perfect sphere from plywood. So we use it as a target. Cut the plywood into pieces. Assemble it into a sphere like box, see how it compares to a sphere. Then we modify it to be more convenient. Longer to be able to sleep in it taller to get in and out easier.

Derivation: Yes, equations are only as good as the mathematics use to derive them the Carnot formula can be derived several ways using mathematics. It has been derived from as simple as the first law: Qh=Qc-W. That is as simple as the first law gets. A whole lot more can be added to it, like Qf heat loss from friction, but it wasn't added. Adding it would not end in the maximum Carnot formula, so fiction is left out.

It also needs the ideal gas formula and heat capacity. PV=MRT and Q=CvMT. None of which has friction loss in them. Heat energy, work energy, temperature, gas property, and constant mass, yes. Friction no.

Usage: Here is were people, authorities, and even me, get confused, slip up, goof, become the fool. The Carnot limit is used for comparison to all real heat engines and heat pumps. It is the spherical-plywood-house gold standard. Unfortunately when measuring real engines all the extra inefficiencies get in the way. People sometimes try to circumvent that somewhat by comparing an indicator diagram to a Carnot or Stirling engine diagram, but even that has limitations. No one compares temperatures of the hot and cold plates to Carnot. All it would do, is tell a person what the Carnot limit is. It would tell nothing about heat flow, power, work, energy, friction, cycle path. Just temperature. When you insulate the cold plate and no change is noted, all that signifies is that the energy is flowing out in some or another way, or your attempted insulation is in error.

If work is measured, before and after insulation, any change in performance is of greater value. Dropping to almost zero means heat needs to get out. Significant increase in work output, an anomaly and unexpected, could just mean the heat is getting out faster, some way or another.

Does the perfect sphere include saw kerf when cutting up the plywood? No, but you will lose to that when trying to beat the volume of your plywood house even when comparing it to a perfect sphere.

Given all the losses a heat engine will have, it still won't beat the Carnot limit. A real engine with all its losses must have a measured overall efficiency, n=W/fuel, that is higher than the Carnot limit, before anyone will understand it. Measuring Th and Tc with insulation is inconclusive. Measure the work output, and the heat developed, becoming the heat to be supplied, to become an even smaller Qh also known as Qin. See how close it is to Carnot.

I'm find it challenging to answer your simple questions when it requires deeper in depth answers that you typically dismiss, deny, fail to address, and misunderstand. The above is still a mere simplification.

.

[Fool]

.

Except around 0°C water vapor condenses on my glass of ice tea.

Your glass is in what would be considered an open system. It is condensing water because it is at a lower temperature than the dew point. As the air looses its moisture it gets heavier and naturally sinks pulling more air with moisture in from above. There is no end to the supply of air past the glass in the realistic future during the time the ice hasn't completely melted. Condensation adds heat energy to the glass.

None of the gases that comprise our atmosphere appear to be "expanding to fill the container" or we wouldn't have an atmosphere.

I knew that strawman would come up, I think I tried to disarm it in an earlier posting. Our atmosphere is contained in what is commonly called a gravity well. If the well is not deep enough the gasses escape. Such an escape can be observed on the Earth's Moon, or any other smaller atmosphere less celestial body.

Under STP conditions nearly everything is "expanding to fill the container"...even must solids are slowly evaporating into the atmosphere when exposed, we just don't live long enough to witness this. Most common liquids automatically "expand to fill the container" similar 1/2 gal of liquid in 1 gal can, but cap limits "expansion" via partial pressure.

Quite right. Solids retain the basic shape, slowly evaporate, and the gas fills the container. Some solids, helium and hydrogen, go completely to gas when the pressure is removed, it may slow some at single digit Kelvins.

The same with liquids, except they fill the bottom of the container up to their volume level. Their gasses then fill the rest of the container.

Sorry just wanted to clarify.



.

[Tom Booth]

As said before, "efficiency" is a term with various different applications, meanings and definitions. I've never gotten a clear answer about what "efficiency" the so-called Carnot Limit equation uses, or is supposed to represent, which comes in handy for you 2nd Law advocates who can then change the definition willy nilly to suit your argument at any given time

Because Tom Booth can't follow simple definitions of efficiency, the rest of us aren't allowed to use it in any equations... Many people understand it. It's easy to follow. Definitions are given. Your inabilities have been demonstrated often here. Proves nothing. Zero cohesive mathematics from you. Take some college level math courses, or even highschool level math courses. Get good instruction.

OK, please answer this:

Does "Carnot efficiency" include friction as part of the "rejected" so-called "waste heat" or not?

If you can find an authoritative reference I'd be very grateful.

Likely though, I could find you as many that say the opposite.

Supposedly the Carnot engine discounts friction, so logically so does the "Carnot limit" though many references include it as part of the heat "rejected".

If so, how can "friction" be precisely calculated by the ∆T?

Please resolve this, if you can, as I've seen as many references say one opinion as the other, and I think you have flip flopped on the subject as well.

Argument from authority is a logical fallacy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

I hope you will notice the contradicting points in that web page. It's a logical fallacy but, "likely to be correct if the authority is a real and pertinent intellectual authority". When authorities appear to clash using them is definitely a fallacy. Even though we are not going to put forth any data about clashing authorities or if they even are an authority, let us not use them for this discussion.

We are going to have to come to a conclusion on this using mathematics, logic and definitions.

Definition: The Carnot limit is defined as n=(Th -Tc)/Th. For ideal cycles, real cycles, cycles drawn on a PV diagram, even measured indicator.diagrams, and measured heat in and work output, to be the perfect maximum efficiency that could ever be expected from a perfect heat engine running in a cycle, with temperature limits Th and Tc. It must have a cycle that starts at a specific pressure, and volume, which also is a specific temperature, and it must also have a set cyclic working specific gas mass open or closed system. In other words the path drawn on a PV diagram must start and end at the same point and enclose a smooth area with zero breaks.

Yes it is my description in my own words as to what the definition of a Carnot limit is limited to. Right or wrong it gives a footing for our discussion. We can discuss any differences we may have on this definition. We may discuss any apparent deviations from this definition that might crop up in the following discourse.

Use the following for a 'more' authoritative description:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot% ... odynamics)

It boils down to the same equation for 'n' efficiency.

Mathematics: From the above definition the only mathematics for the Carnot limit is: n=(Th -Tc)/Th. That's it. Case closed. Even though there can be tons of mathematical calculations leading up to that equation, the end result is that simple equation.

Logic: That equation has only efficiency as the dependent variable and temperatures as the independent variable. It doesn't have friction in it. In fact it doesn't have either of the two thermodynamic variables pressure or volume in it. It is devoid of size, windage, pumping losses, pressure, heat, heat in, heat out, internal energy, displacer shape pancake or sausage, direction of rotation, North or South, up stream, down stream, kinematics, computers, PV path shape, you get the point. Friction is not a variable.

The Carnot efficiency is only dependent on temperature and the binding definition. Definition? Whoa, slow down. Yes the definition limits it to systems that cycle.

At this point I'd like to compare it to the maximum sized house that can be built from a single sheet of plywood. In the ideal realm the sphere is the shape with maximum volume to minimum material or surface area. So we equate the surface area of plywood 4'x8', to the surface area of a sphere 4πr^2, to get the radius, then calculate volume of the sphere, 4/3πr^3. Of course it is recognized that, it is impossible to build a perfect sphere from plywood. So we use it as a target. Cut the plywood into pieces. Assemble it into a sphere like box, see how it compares to a sphere. Then we modify it to be more convenient. Longer to be able to sleep in it taller to get in and out easier.

Derivation: Yes, equations are only as good as the mathematics use to derive them the Carnot formula can be derived several ways using mathematics. It has been derived from as simple as the first law: Qh=Qc-W. That is as simple as the first law gets. A whole lot more can be added to it, like Qf heat loss from friction, but it wasn't added. Adding it would not end in the maximum Carnot formula, so fiction is left out.

It also needs the ideal gas formula and heat capacity. PV=MRT and Q=CvMT. None of which has friction loss in them. Heat energy, work energy, temperature, gas property, and constant mass, yes. Friction no.

Usage: Here is were people, authorities, and even me, get confused, slip up, goof, become the fool. The Carnot limit is used for comparison to all real heat engines and heat pumps. It is the spherical-plywood-house gold standard. Unfortunately when measuring real engines all the extra inefficiencies get in the way. People sometimes try to circumvent that somewhat by comparing an indicator diagram to a Carnot or Stirling engine diagram, but even that has limitations. No one compares temperatures of the hot and cold plates to Carnot. All it would do, is tell a person what the Carnot limit is. It would tell nothing about heat flow, power, work, energy, friction, cycle path. Just temperature. When you insulate the cold plate and no change is noted, all that signifies is that the energy is flowing out in some or another way, or your attempted insulation is in error.

If work is measured, before and after insulation, any change in performance is of greater value. Dropping to almost zero means heat needs to get out. Significant increase in work output, an anomaly and unexpected, could just mean the heat is getting out faster, some way or another.

Does the perfect sphere include saw kerf when cutting up the plywood? No, but you will lose to that when trying to beat the volume of your plywood house even when comparing it to a perfect sphere.

Given all the losses a heat engine will have, it still won't beat the Carnot limit. A real engine with all its losses must have a measured overall efficiency, n=W/fuel, that is higher than the Carnot limit, before anyone will understand it. Measuring Th and Tc with insulation is inconclusive. Measure the work output, and the heat developed, becoming the heat to be supplied, to become an even smaller Qh also known as Qin. See how close it is to Carnot.

I'm find it challenging to answer your simple questions when it requires deeper in depth answers that you typically dismiss, deny, fail to address, and misunderstand. The above is still a mere simplification.

.

Your claim is, or was, the terminology of thermodynamics is well defined, precise and agreed upon so there can be no confusion.

Your rambling, side stepping, rejection of authority, inconclusive, evasive non-answer to a simple question about how Carnot efficiency is defined indicates otherwise.

If my LTD Stirling running on a cup of coffee has 20% so-called "Carnot efficiency" where is friction? On the 20% side or the 80% side?

Some say friction is part of the heat rejected. You can never have 100% efficiency because of friction loses. So friction is on the 80% side.

Then someone introduced frictionless air bearings, something never previously imagined, so we can now virtually eliminate friction loses so some of that 80% rejected heat can be moved over to the other side for, maybe 21% efficiency right?

Now another Authority, (or the same in many cases) will flip and say the Carnot Limit does not include friction or ignores friction altogether.

"Because Tom Booth can't follow simple definitions of efficiency"

Your long rambling inconclusive post above that throws out all authority but offers no real answer doesn't reflect a "simple definition" at all.

When it comes to thermodynamics terminology inconsistencies and contradictions, lack of agreement regarding how to treat friction is just the tip of the iceberg.

As I said at the start, this lack of agreement on such basic terminology...

"comes in handy for you 2nd Law advocates who can then change the definition willy nilly to suit your argument at any given time"

It is impossible to "win the game" because the rules keep changing or are just made up on the fly. The whole field is a muddle of contradictions and confusion surrounding obsolete terminology and concepts based on a fallacious theory of heat.

There are no "reservoirs", no "flows" of heat traveling like rivers between reservoirs, no "fall" of heat from a "high" to a "low" level, etc. etc.

It's all crap.

[Fool]

.

It's all crap

Again, this is what we teach pre-K, and elementary, students is unacceptable behavior. Didn't your mommy teach you any better?

You are gifted at rambling about my ramblings, but refute nothing of my science. You are either incapable of logical discourse, or have some deeply seated insecurities. I'm very sorry for you. Your personal attacks are helping nothing, and certainly hurting you. I'm sorry for that as well. I wish you well and far away from me.

.

[Tom Booth]

.

It's all crap

Again, this is what we teach pre-K, and elementary, students is unacceptable behavior. Didn't your mommy teach you any better?

You are gifted at rambling about my ramblings, but refute nothing of my science. You are either incapable of logical discourse, or have some deeply seated insecurities. I'm very sorry for you. Your personal attacks are helping nothing, and certainly hurting you. I'm sorry for that as well. I wish you well and far away from me.

.

I don't consider calling an obsolete invalidated so-called "science" CRAP a "personal attack".

Sorry if you are so identified with thermodynamics that you take that personally.

Refuting an obsolete supposedly "scientific" principle is a matter of objective reasoning and logic along with empirical observation and experiment, not personality.

If you take my criticism of thermodynamics theory personally, I think YOU need to grow up.

[VincentG]

The point is, gas particles DO have forces of attraction that brings them together even above "escape velocity". Even as gases, not liquids or solids. The kinetic model of gases moving in straight lines without ever influencing each other, without mutual attraction and repulsion is a convenient "idealization" for simplifying some mathematical approximations but is mostly fiction. Actual gas molecules do have attraction, do "contract" or condense leaving a vacuum, even inside a rigid container under the right conditions, they do not automatically "expand to fill the container" if attractive forces dominate.

But, I could be wrong

Boltzmann and others worked out various distribution theories that appear valid. Under STP conditions nearly everything is "expanding to fill the container"...even must solids are slowly evaporating into the atmosphere when exposed, we just don't live long enough to witness this. Most common liquids automatically "expand to fill the container" similar 1/2 gal of liquid in 1 gal can, but cap limits "expansion" via partial pressure.

The drum "implosion" appears to happen very suddenly without warning, causing shock, screams and gasps in the observers, so, maybe somebody should attach a pressure gauge to the drum and find out.

The drum implosion is stress relief which is always more dramatic when the drum is stronger.

Tom you are reading too much into the drum implosion. Even if there is something to what you say, the drum collapsing is not how one would experimentally prove it.

Matt I'm sure there has been an experiment where a liquid gas is released into a vacuum chamber. Surely some liquid must change to a gas and fill the void?

Maybe for a brief moment there is an effect from a combination of the gas cooling, intermolecular attraction, and the inertia of the gas being compressed by a driving force (be it a piston or a high-pressure region).

[Fool]

An vacuum boiler powered by room temperature and ice. Sort of proves condensation.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xiWZVra_qgU

[Tom Booth]

An vacuum boiler powered by room temperature and ice. Sort of proves condensation.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xiWZVra_qgU

Your video has me wondering, if water can boil in a vacuum at room temperature by cooling/condensation, it should be possible to make a "drinking Bird" type heat engine using plain water rather than ether or methylene chloride.

Would that experiment, using water in a mason jar, work using a damp washcloth cooled only by evaporation instead of ice?

Maybe not quite as well, or quite as quickly, but I'd be interested to find out.

An easy experiment.

I don't know why they don't just use a pressure cooker/canner for these demonstrations to create the saturated vapor in the mason jar instead of fooling around with plastic wrap.

[Tom Booth]

An vacuum boiler powered by room temperature and ice. Sort of proves condensation.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xiWZVra_qgU

So are you agreeing with me now?

The fluid in the bird condenses (or "contracts") creating a vacuum. So the fluid rises.

This is a closed vessel so there is no outside atmospheric pressure to "compress" the gas.

Does the gas "contract" by cooling from evaporation or only expand from heating by ambient heat?

I'd say either one will take the bird away from equilibrium, so either/or can be a means of driving "work" as nature goes about restoring the equilibrium.

Both expansion and contraction are a matter of a balance, or imbalance of internal and external forces that includes both attractive and repulsive forces of the gas molecules themselves.

[Fool]

.

The zero-motor for example was tested extensively by the Navy for three months in the Naval yard and declared sound in principle and operational and was signed off on by the president.

I found the following on the "zero motor":

https://hughjyeman.wordpress.com/2016/0 ... -the-news/

My skeptic meter again maxing out. I can't tell if there was anything more than a freezer built. No record of the engine working as the rumor mill suggests.

I would think, since Gamgee was a veterinarian that took interest in refrigerator technology, that anyone could easily figure out how to make one. Considering the massive benefits anyone would have for doing so, it surprises me that no one else has done so. That leads me to the conclusion that it is way easier to baffle someone with a fraud than to build a working perpetual motion machine.

.

[Fool]

So what is your game exactly "fool"?

Are you being paid to harass me and try to discredit me and my experiments, or do you just consider this your civic duty?

I'm really not as bad as you make me out to be. I don't have any game. Just like science to be as correct as possible. In the journey of correcting misunderstandings, I am learning. Don't expect anyone to be perfect, I'm definitely not, especially when posting when tired.

I wish I were paid to be here. Most of the builders here would benefit from a formal education.

I have no desire to discredit you or anyone else. I do have a desire to explain things correctly, or less confusingly.

Take for example adiabatic temperature rise from compression work. It confusingly is abbreviated as 'heat of compression'.

It is confusing because adiabatic means, without heat. Heat, heating cooling imply an energy transfer between temperature differences.

So I'm suggesting adiabatic temperature rise. It is a result of the working gas increasing in temperature as a result of work being applied.

The confusion comes from the old pre caloric days of heat being contained in a hot item. Now heat is only how the energy got in there. The energy in there is now called internal energy.

Adiabatic temperature rise is the result of applying work to compress a gas which raises the internal energy.

I did a lot of investigating on the web to determine that is correct. I had to put several scientific points together to form that statement.

[Tom Booth]

So what is your game exactly "fool"?

Are you being paid to harass me and try to discredit me and my experiments, or do you just consider this your civic duty?

I'm really not as bad as you make me out to be. I don't have any game. Just like science to be as correct as possible. In the journey of correcting misunderstandings, I am learning. Don't expect anyone to be perfect, I'm definitely not, especially when posting when tired.

I wish I were paid to be here. Most of the builders here would benefit from a formal education.

I have no desire to discredit you or anyone else. I do have a desire to explain things correctly, or less confusingly.

Take for example adiabatic temperature rise from compression work. It confusingly is abbreviated as 'heat of compression'.

No it isn't.

The confusion is yours.

Heat of compression is heat of compression. Heat of compression is not necessarily adiabatic and is not an abbreviation for adiabatic temperature rise from compression.

It is confusing because adiabatic means, without heat.

No it doesn't.

Adiabatic means without heat transfer across the system boundary. Heat generated from compression does not cross the system boundary.

Heat, heating cooling imply an energy transfer between temperature differences.

So I'm suggesting adiabatic temperature rise. It is a result of the working gas increasing in temperature as a result of work being applied.

The confusion comes from the old pre caloric days of heat being contained in a hot item. Now heat is only how the energy got in there. The energy in there is now called internal energy.

Adiabatic temperature rise is the result of applying work to compress a gas which raises the internal energy.

I did a lot of investigating on the web to determine that is correct. I had to put several scientific points together to form that statement.

Well, would you say that friction generates heat?

Heat from friction does not involve a transfer of heat does it?

There is a difference between "heat" as a strict scientific term and "heat" as a word in common usage.

I suppose "heat of compression" is a science term or thermodynamic phrase where heat is used in the common, non-scientific sense of a temperature increase, like heat from friction rather than in the strict scientific sense of a transfer of energy.

Big whoop, loosen up. The word policing and splitting hairs over words and terminology gets tiresome.

Heat can be generated from compression while heat is also gained or lost by transfer, conduction, chemical reaction etc. "heat of compression" can be, but is not necessarily adiabatic.

[Fool]

.

Heat of compression is heat of compression. Heat of compression is not necessarily adiabatic and is not an abbreviation for adiabatic temperature rise from compression.

You are confusing the distinct concepts of adiabatic processes, compression, internal energy, and heat.

Compression can be adiabatic or with temperature induced heat flow at the same time. Temperature can go up or down during compression depending on gas temperature and surrounding temperature, and speed of compression.

The term 'heat of compression' is a confusing attempt to remove the transfered heat and analyze just the adiabatic compression effect. It was an attempt to separate it from; heat of conduction, which is now the new definition of the term heat, (but you won't find that anywhere.). In reality it is internal energy that rises, reflected by a temperature rise, induced by compression from work input.

I'm trying to call it adiabatic temperature rise, to remove it from the heat term. I'm open to other potential terms, as long as the term 'heat' isn't in it. Unless of course, you want to rename everything, or a good share of them.

It gets further confused by the idea that heat and internal energy are both different ways of looking at Thermal energy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_energy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressor#Temperature

..... Adiabatic – This model assumes that no energy (heat) is transferred to or from the gas during the compression, and all supplied work is added to the internal energy of the gas, resulting in increases of temperature and pressure. ......

.....Isothermal – This model assumes that the compressed gas remains at a constant temperature throughout the compression or expansion process. In this cycle, internal energy is removed from the system as heat at the same rate that it is added by the mechanical work of compression. Isothermal compression or expansion more closely models real life when the compressor has a large heat exchanging surface, a small gas volume, or a long time scale (i.e., a small power level). Compressors that utilize inter-stage cooling between compression stages come closest to achieving perfect isothermal compression. However, with practical devices perfect isothermal compression is not attainable. For example, unless you have an infinite number of compression stages with corresponding intercoolers, you will never achieve perfect isothermal compression. .....

Tom, it is just modern day definitions. You are using old outdated pre Caloric Theory, and Caloric Theory, terminology. It began changing in the late 1800's, sort of standardized in the 1900's, and is still now scrambled and misunderstood and misspoken in the 2020's. This can only help if you spend the time, as I did, investigating the modern use of these terms. Especially, heat, internal energy, enthalpy, temperature, entropy, adiabatic process, and isothermal process. Also, hot, and thermal energy, and many more.

It gets more confusing at the beginning of the investigation because there is a lot of confusion in many people's descriptions of the terms. That is just the human error creeping in. You need to gather the correct parts, and ignore the errors, and confusing parts.

As I've tried to point out, I'm trying to eliminate the confusing parts. Heat of compression is an oxymoron. Compression is independent of heat, but directly tied to internal energy. Heat is also directly tied to internal energy.

U=W+Q

U internal energy
W work
Q heat transfered

.