Stirlingengineforum.com

220
APPENDIX A.

(to be proved). Thus heat is produced by motion.If it is matter, it must be admitted that the matter is created by motion.

(2) When an air-pump is worked, and at the same time air is admitted into the receiver, the temperature remains constant in the receiver. It remains constant on the outside.

Consequently, the air compressed by the pumps must rise in temperature above the air outside, and it is expelled at a higher temperature. The air enters then at a temperature of 10, for instance, and leaves at another, 10 -f 90 or 100, for example.

Thus heat has been created by motion.

(3) If the air in a reservoir is compressed, and at the same time allowed to escape through a little opening, there is by the compression elevation of temperature, by the escape lowering of temperature (according to Gay-Lussac and Welter). The air then enters at one side at one temperature and escapes at the other side at a higher temperature, from which follows the same conclusion as in the preceding case.

(Experiment to be made : To fit to a high-pressure boiler a cock and a tube leading to it and emptying into the atmosphere; to open the cock a little way, and present a thermometer to the outlet of the steam; to see if it remains at 100 or more;

APPENDIX A.

to see if steam is liquefied in the pipe; to see whether it comes out cloudy or transparent.)

(4) The elevation of temperature which takes place at the time of the entrance of the air into the vacuum, an elevation that cannot be attributed to the compression of the air remaining (air which may be replaced by steam), can therefore be attributed only to the friction of the air against the walls of the opening, or against the interior of the
receiver, or against itself.

(5) M. Gay-Lussac showed (it is said) that if
two receivers were put in communication with each other, the one a vacuum, the other full of air, the temperature would rise in one as much as it would fall in the other. If, then, both be compressed one half, the first would return to its previous temperature and the second to a much higher one. Mixing them, the whole mass would be heated.

When the air enters a vacuum, its passage through one small opening and the motion imparted to it in the interior appear to produce elevation of temperature.

We may be allowed to express here an hypothesis in regard to the nature of heat.

At present, light is generally regarded as the ...

222 APPENDIX A.

result of a vibratory movement of the ethereal fluid. Light produces heat, or at least accompanies the radiating heat, and moves with the same velocity as heat.

Radiating heat is then a vibratory movement. It would be ridiculous to suppose that it is an emission of matter while the light which accompanies it could be only a movement.

Could a motion (that of radiating heat) produce matter (caloric) ?

No, undoubtedly; it can only produce a motion.

Heat is then the result of a motion.

Then it is plain that it could be produced by the consumption of motive power, and that it could produce this power.

All the other phenomena composition and de-composition of bodies, passage to the gaseous state, specific heat, equilibrium of heat, its more or less easy transmission, its constancy in experiments with the calorimeter could be explained by this hypothesis.

But it would be difficult to explain why, in the development of motive power by heat, a cold body is necessary ; why, in consuming the heat of a warm body, motion cannot be produced.

It appears very difficult to penetrate into the real essence of bodies. To avoid erroneous reasoning, it would be necessary to investigate carefully

APPENDIX A. 223

the source of our knowledge in regard to the nature of bodies, their form, their forces; to see what the primitive notions are, to see from what impressions they are derived ; to see how one is raised successively to the different degrees of abstraction.

Is heat the result of a vibratory motion of molecules ?

If this is so, quantity of heat is simply quantity of motive power.

As long as motive power is employed to produce vibratory movements, the quantity of heat must be unchangeable; which seems to follow from experiments with the calorimeter; but when it passes into movements of sensible extent, the quantity of heat can no longer remain constant.

Can examples be found of the production of motive power with actual consumption of heat?

It seems that we may find production of heat with consumption of motive power (re-entrance of the air into a vacuum, for example).

What is the cause of the production of heat in combinations of substances? What is radiant
caloric ?

Liquefaction of bodies, solidification of liquids,...

'224. APPENDIX A.

...crystallization are they not forms of combinations of integrant molecules ?

Supposing heat due to a vibratory movement, how can the passage from the solid or the liquid to the gaseous state be explained?

When motive power is produced by the passage of heat from the body A to the body B, is the quantity of this heat which arrives at B (if
it is not the same as that which has been taken from A, if a portion has really been consumed to produce motive power) the same whatever may be the substance employed to realize the motive power?

Is there any way of using more heat in the pro-
duction of motive power, and of causing less to reach the body B ? Could we even utilize it entirely, allowing none to go to the body B ? If
this were possible, motive power could be created without consumption of combustible, and by mere destruction of the heat of bodies.

(...)

Goofy wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 11:54 pm @Fool
" I would like to point out that PV/T=mR/M are state points on a PV diagram. Heat and Work aren't in that equation."
Just to point out :

p : Pascal
V : M3 (cubic meter)
T: Kelvin
m: kilogram
R : 8314 Joule/Kelvin*kilomol (gas-constant)
M : Molar weight in kilogram/kilomol (for air its app. 29 gram/mol)

So heat surely are in this equation. All it actually tell you is, that p*V/T is a constant for a specific gas.

A Stirling engine is a closed system with a fixed amount of gas inside, so m is constant, R is constant and M is constant.

So here pressure, volume and temperature always relates to each other on a fixed set of rules.
But it it very hard to tell which is where and when in a sterling engine, as it depends on cam-angles and stroke-lengths.
If with a magnetic connected displacer, it gets even worse to figure out, as seen in Tom´s slomo video.

So it will be hard to calculate these values and plot them in a pV diagram. You will have to measure them in realtime.

Hmm, but where to put the probes ?
If we put a thermocoupler probe inside the middle of a thick base copper or aluminium plate. I have Just drilled a ø4mm hole from the side of a 8mm thick plate.

So I know the temperatur of "heat in". Of cause it´s also nice to know the amount of kilojoules going in . . .

But it can be really messy to point out the exact p, V and T in a running Stirling engine

Have a nice weekend !

Fool wrote: ↑Fri Aug 04, 2023 3:08 pm I take Carnot's comment to mean, if an engine expels zero heat to a cool sink, a perpetual motion machine can be built. There will be no need to feed a hot source from burning fuel. Carnot seemed to comment that the cold sink is evey bit as important as the hot source.
(...)

Fool wrote: ↑Fri Aug 04, 2023 3:08 pm (...)

My thoughts for an upsidedown test:

1: Putting ice on the flat side will allow the piston side to be warmer, so less condensation will be observed.

You observed that the engine runs better when cooled above heated below. Upsidedown will allow that, without cooling the piston and displacer rod. Maybe causing less condensation on them. Anything below the dew point for the room will cause condensation.

2: If heated from below, insulated on top, and piston side is up, there is a chance that the insulated "leaky" piston and displacer gland will pull in cool room air and push out warm engine air.

Running it upsidedown allows the piston bottom side to be heated and the flat top side to be cooled. Now the leaks will pull in heated air and push out heated air.

Some building of a heat container around the hot side would be necessary. It would eliminate the possibility for cooling, by mass flow in and out, to be happening.

From what I've seen here, we all seem to agree that an LTD pumps heat. If driven, one side gets hot and the second gets cold. If reversed one side gets cold and the second get hot. It switches. There is a Phillips video demonstrating some of this.

If run as an engine heat enters the hot side. It seems hard to believe that it doesn't operate as a heat pump and also come out the bottom side since the machine is identical and run at the same speed. Tom's experiment appears to refute that.

So, either 200 years of science is wrong, or we are missing some explanation in Tom's experiment. I'm betting on an explanation.

Running it upside down will allow insulation to be easily added and removed. It will allow any thickness to be used. How it behaves with several different thickness and diameters is just good science. Try preheating and cooling the insulation too. If you have the time, curiosity, interest, and desire.

May those studies go well. My thought is that the graphs and charts presented here seem to support 200 year-old heat pump theory, despite Tom's description. Sorry. Even if Tom is correct he and I and other followers will find it impossible to convince main stream science. Tom asked for someone to disprove him, if they could. I don't know if I can without working those experiments in the same lab with him. Or prove him right. I need to see if I can, either way, before throwing out conventional science. Numbers rule, so watch out.

Fool wrote: ↑Fri Aug 04, 2023 3:08 pm (...)
From what I've seen here, we all seem to agree that an LTD pumps heat. If driven, one side gets hot and the second gets cold. If reversed one side gets cold and the second get hot. It switches. There is a Phillips video demonstrating some of this.

If run as an engine heat enters the hot side. It seems hard to believe that it doesn't operate as a heat pump and also come out the bottom side since the machine is identical and run at the same speed. Tom's experiment appears to refute that.

So, either 200 years of science is wrong, or we are missing some explanation in Tom's experiment. I'm betting on an explanation.

(...)

Fool wrote: ↑Fri Aug 04, 2023 4:55 pm "Is there any way of using more heat in the pro-
duction of motive power, and of causing less to reach the body B ? Could we even utilize it entirely, allowing none to go to the body B ? If
this were possible, motive power could be created without consumption of combustible, and by mere destruction of the heat of bodies."

That appears to be his conclusion and appears as I've decribed.

Heat is then the result of a motion.

Then it is plain that it could be produced by the consumption of motive power, and that it could produce this power.

Heat is simply motive power, or rather motion
which has changed form. It is a movement among the particles of bodies.

Wherever there is destruction of motive power there is, at the same time, production of heat in quantity exactly proportional to the quantity of motive power destroyed. Reciprocally, wherever there is destruction of heat, there is production of motive power.

Is heat the result of a vibratory motion of molecules ?

If this is so, quantity of heat is simply quantity of motive power.

As long as motive power is employed to produce vibratory movements, the quantity of heat must be unchangeable; which seems to follow from experiments with the calorimeter; but when it passes into movements of sensible extent, the quantity of heat can no longer remain constant.

Can examples be found of the production of motive power with actual consumption of heat?