Stirlingengineforum.com

I'm content to simply say "so-called" heat of compression or whatever.

If a term has been in use for 100 years and everybody agrees on the meaning, I don't have an option other than to use the accepted terminology available, or do as you appear to be trying to do and invent new "better" more consistent or whatever terminology and try to get everybody to go along with it.

Good luck with that. But I don't have the time or inclination.

As I've said many times, thermodynamics as a so-called "science" is a muddle of over a century of changes, outdated confusing terminology and obsolete contradictory theories. It really just needs to go in the garbage like an old torn patched up pair of blue jeans. It has been patched up so many times there is nothing left but patches.

The so-called "Carnot Limit" is the worst of the lot and should be discounted and ignored entirely and recognized as the completely obsolete nonsense that it truly is.

.

Tom Booth wrote:I'm content to simply say "so-called" heat of compression or whatever.

Be my guest. It sure has you baffled.

Tom Booth wrote:As I've said many times, thermodynamics as a so-called "science" is a muddle of over a century of changes, outdated confusing terminology and obsolete contradictory theories.

And you appear to be bent on keeping it that way through the practice of ignorance, stubbornness, and vituperation. Good luck.

Tom Booth wrote:The so-called "Carnot Limit" is the worst of the lot and should be discounted and ignored entirely and recognized as the completely obsolete nonsense that it truly is.

Your opinion noted. Because of lack of, education, understanding, and authority, it is easily dismissed, in your case. Try later when you have a formal understanding. Of course you will then understand why science works and won't want to bash it anymore.

.

I understand science, probably better than you ever will. My father was a chemistry professor and I spent most of my childhood days with my older brothers in my father's lab doing experiments for fun. I have a genuine love for genuine science and know how to recognize BS using scientific methodology and the so-called "Carnot efficiency limit" is just that, total BS.

You're like the Captain of a sinking ship.

.

All you know is nothing. All I know is that I know nothing. I'm a step up on you. I at least know we are all bozos on this bus.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lmWFrMq3qNY

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YKZtt2yEwfs





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

I hope you are enjoying the night.

.

Fool wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 8:04 pm .

All you know is nothing. All I know is that I know nothing. I'm a step up on you. I at least know we are all bozos on this bus.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lmWFrMq3qNY

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YKZtt2yEwfs




ship-of-fools-car-of-idiots-v0-qr5uhpr370zc1.jpeg



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

I hope you are enjoying the night.

.

Speak for yourself, moron. Your the one clinging to a hopelessly obsolete science trying to patch the hull of a sinking ship as you drown. Good riddance.


"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

---- Max Planck

.

Tommy wrote:Your the one clinging to a hopelessly obsolete science trying to patch the hull of a sinking ship as you drown. Good riddance.

When you start succeeding in constructing perpetual motion machines, or engines that are more efficient than Carnot, people will stop laughing at you. You're the one lacking any mathematics, data, or extraordinary evidence. You are just full of wind, spite, and vituperation.


When a person is clinging to the refuted mystic belief that perpetual motion is possible, they soon start grasping at straws, lying, defrauding, and cursing.

Max planck was talking about mathematical theory that is demonstrable, and perhaps backed up by scientific data, not mystical hoo haw, that fails any further testing.


.

.

Matt Brown wrote:Fool - did you ever consider exactly how hot air rises in a room with a floor heater ?

Isobaric expansion. And a flow that lacks mixing.

It also proves that gas molecules are free to move about, not locked in.

.

Fool wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 12:15 am .

Matt Brown wrote:Fool - did you ever consider exactly how hot air rises in a room with a floor heater ?

Isobaric expansion. And a flow that lacks mixing.

It also proves that gas molecules are free to move about, not locked in.

Fool wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 6:27 am ...
Gas has a separation, no longer bonded with free path and ability to escape. It must be contained in some manner or fly off into a vacuum forever.
...

So what is the rising volume of hot gas "contained" by that does not allow the individual hot gas molecules to "fly off" into the immediately adjacent cold volume?

.

Gravity and the cold air around it. Laminar flow, stream mixing, temperature inversion, are all taught in fluid dynamics class, and meteorology classes.

.

Fool wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 5:56 am .

Gravity and the cold air around it. Laminar flow, stream mixing, temperature inversion, are all taught in fluid dynamics class, and meteorology classes.

.

So, the inevitable "expansion forever" of heated gas molecules is completely thwarted in its travel by what containment?

None at all?

Just the adjacent air molecules?

But in an engine cylinder it's different. The hard steel is no match for fools expanding hot air. LOL

.

The containment is the Earth's gravity well. Like having a jar of water. It's a jar of air wrapped around the entire Earth. No walls lid made of gravity, bottom made of dirt and water.

In meteorology they talk of warm and cold fronts. They move over and under each other. They are air masses that have different properties from one another. They mix at the edges and produce storm fronts when rising warm moist air moves up over a cold front cooling and producing rain. The atmospheric air on Earth is always moving in weather patterns. Natural convection can be a very small and even indoors disturbance in the atmosphere. Forced convection is too, but we knew that. Heated air can only expand until it is at the same pressure. But being hotter it will be less dense. Buoyancy is the principal as to why it rises.

I would not call that no containment. I would call that free to move around within the container. The container being Earth and it's gravity.

Tom Booth wrote:But in an engine cylinder it's different. The hard steel is no match for fools expanding hot air. LOL

Boy ain't that the truth. LOL Tom's too. Tee hee hee.

.

Gases contract at lower temperatures drawing together by mutual attraction reducing pressure, even in the most strong, rigid container, where there is no influence from any outside pressure. It's a fact, get used to it. Your assertion that gases "always" expand "forever" as long as they are gases is just ignorant.

.

Ton Booth wrote:Your assertion that gases "always" expand "forever" as long as they are gases is just ignorant.

Ignorant of what? What am I ignoring? The correct statement is gasses expand to fill the container.

Google AI wrote:Yes, gases always "push" because their constituent particles are constantly moving in random directions and colliding with the walls of their container, exerting a force on the surface which we perceive as pressure; essentially, the continuous bombardment of gas molecules creates a pushing effect.

Key points about gas pressure:

Kinetic Molecular Theory:
This theory explains that gas particles are in constant, random motion, colliding with each other and the container walls, causing pressure.

No attractive forces:
Unlike liquids or solids, gas particles have very weak attractive forces between them, allowing them to move freely and spread out.

Temperature dependence:
Higher temperature means faster gas particle movement, leading to increased pressure.

https://van.physics.illinois.edu/ask/listing/19462

You're right that gases don't spread out because of forces pushing the molecules apart. In fact, there are some forces pulling molecules together. That's what causes gases to clump up into liquids when they're cooled enough.

So why do they spread out? It's just that the molecules bounce around randomly in all directions, and just by chance end up all over the place.

Everyone disagrees. They don't contract. They clump. They stick together. All while filling the container atan p ever lowering pressure, but never zero or negative.

Classical theory correctly models solid, liquid, and gas. Your's doesn't explain solid, liquid, gass nor, convection, aerodynamic flow, JT, adiabatic cooling, fire piston, E. T. C. ...

If you have a completely empty 1 inch^2 cylinder and piston. Pulling a vacuum will give you a max of 14.7 psi.

It will require that force at 10 inch and no greater at 100 inches. Perhaps you could experiment with a large syringe and your thumb, no needle please .

If you introduce a gas, say water, that force will be lower.

The gas will have no pulling force on the piston ? Atmospheric force on the outside crushes the 55 gallon drum.

The volume of a rigid container doesn't change when the gas inside cools. Neither does the molecular size. The main thing that happens is the molecular speed decreases. The molecules don't get closer together. If slow enough they clump, stick together, become a liquid a little at a time.


.

Your AI is reading about Kinetic Molecular Theory of gases.

That is just an OLD model now known to be wrong and/or incomplete.

A vacuum is not a particle, so has no attractive force, except the Casimir effect at very close range due to virtual particles that appear and disappear in and out of existence causing random motion.

All of the assumptions of the Kinetic Molecular Theory of gases are obsolete or just plain wrong and only applying to "ideal gases" that don't actually exist in reality. Or may exist, at least theoretically and approximately within limited ranges of temperature and pressure.

So if gases in a rigid container "contract" into a small area within the container but have not completely condensed into a liquid, the probable result IMO is simply a "cloud" of gas surrounded by a vacuum or partial vacuum between the gas "cloud" and the container walls.

As I said, a vacuum is not anything at all, or almost nothing (virtual particles). So doesn't attract anything.

Before gases "clump" or "stick together" they have mutual attraction that draws them closer together.

Quite obviously, for anyone with a brain with any common sense at all, a container full of gas when gradually cooled, does not just suddenly and instantaneously miraculously become a drop of liquid without an attractive force drawing the particles together.

I've already provided several references with graphic illustrations contradicting your obsolete Kinetic Molecular Theory references.

For example:
Presumably you can understand the difference between "real" and "ideal".

An "ideal" gas is an imaginary model. An approximation, convenient under some ordinary circumstances to simplify calculations. Introduce pressures and temperatures (as found in an engine) that deviate from STP and such approximations are no longer valid.

"Real" means actual. "Real" gases are, well, real. Or at least closer approximations of how gases actually behave, especially under conditions that deviate from standard temperature and pressure, (as found in any kind of engine whatsoever).

Real gases have attractive forces, contrary to the Kinetic Molecular Theory of gases.

But we have already been over this a dozen times before. I've cites numerous references and posted videos regarding "REAL gases". So why do you persist in your bone headed ignorance?

You even ignore your own references:


"In fact, there are some forces pulling molecules together."

.

Tom Booth wrote:Before gases "clump" or "stick together" they have mutual attraction that draws them closer together.

Real molecules moving faster than their own escape velocity periodically experience each other's size and attractive forces and repulsive forces. They periodically move further apart, and closer together, it is called bouncing. The temperature is related to how fast they are going. Velocity and density are related to how many times they bounce. Size of molecule has an effect, as does density, volume, and numbers, moles, total contained mass. That induces a correlation with temperature and pressure.

Real molecules below their mutual escape velocities will go into orbit when attempting to bounce. That is clumping, or sticking together. It happens because temperature/velocity has decreased, and normal movement brings them closer. This leaves the remaining volume open for greater free path and lower pressure from less bouncing, by the remaining above escape velocity molecules. It still fills the container with a positive but much lower pressure. It is progressive, happening slowly as energy is removed by heat or work.

Actions of real gases and liquids have been known long before the ideal gas laws were formulated. It is recorded in early steam tables. Steam tables are used to draw phase diagrams. Phase diagrams clearly and correctly depict all effects of size, and attraction, from solid to liquid to gas if the data is included. Every engineering student taking thermodynamics is instructed on when to use steam tables, and stop using ideal gas laws. They are also instructed when to stop using Newton's equations and start using Einstein's. They are also taught orbital mechanics and escape velocity mathematics. Also quantum mechanics, chemistry, electricity, electric and magnetic field theory, general physics, etc...

If you want accurate analysis for phase change processes you will need to use steam tables or phase diagrams, if you've been taught how to use them. This is not a new theory or discovery and doesn't contradict kinetic theory, it arguments ideal gas theory when real gasses deviate from ideal. Ideal gas equations are a simplified version of kinetic theory. Real gas acts kinetically, it is just that the equations are more complex.

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

Tom Booth wrote:Real gases have attractive forces, contrary to the Kinetic Molecular Theory of gases.

Not contrary. Real gasses act kinetically, just more complexly than the ideal gas law equations. Of course in Stirling's and ICE's, the ideal gas equations are accurate enough for our understanding here and in our garages. If you want to design steam engines, use steam tables.

.