Stirlingengineforum.com

Fool wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 12:25 am ...

It's not a matter of not knowing. It is a matter of not wanting to spend the time looking for obscure symbols.

...

So why struggle to post 'obscure symbols" when it would obviously be a simple matter to post the correct, universally accepted and well understood equation?

The point here is internal energy is vibrations, temperature. Heat is not. All equations clearly separate them, even when you quote them.

Internal energy is not temperature. For a gas, internal energy and temperature are related but not the same thing. Saying that "internal energy is... temperature" is just wrong.

Q is a quantity of energy in Joules, W is a quantity of energy in Joules.

Temperature is not a quantity, it's an average. A 16 ounce glass of water at 100°C does not contain the same quantity of energy as as a five gallon pot of boiling water at 100°C

Temperature is not a quantity of energy.

If you add 300 joules of heat or work to a model LTD you are not going to bring the working fluid temperature up the same number of degrees that you would adding the same 300 joules of work or heat to a 25 kilowatt engine.

Temperature is not joules of energy.

Heat, work and internal energy are all measured in Joules because fundamentally they ARE all the same thing: energy.

Temperature is not an actual quantity of energy.

You happily and with complete abandon substitute 300 joules for 300 degrees in your various attempts at your "derivation". As above, you are careless about your notation. Qez Qcz etc. just making stuff up without clear definitions.

The more complicated you make it the easier it is to pull a "switcheroo" which even Matt Brown called you out on.

So when VincentG writes you a blank check saying: "... the math is sound. Things can be computed accurately, that can't be denied"

Sorry but math can easily be fouled up, misapplied, misunderstood, screwed around with and deliberately abused in a thousand different ways and should always be checked and rechecked and compared with reality through empirical experiment, not just given Carte blanche, especially when dealing with "fool" and his IMO, intentionally deceptive "derivations". and number juggling in general.

If a mathematical derivation and empirical experimental results don't agree, guess who wins?

If experimental results don't conform to some 200 year old efficiency formula that was based on a fallacious theory of heat and has never been empirically tested or verified I think it's perfectly justified to question the mathematical formula that repeatedly resulted in wrong predictions for experimental outcomes.

Tom please don't derail this thread with Carnot. I was referring to thermodynamic formulas being able to accurately predict the outcome of systems. Whether or not it accurately describes the real mechanisms involved may be up for debate.

VincentG wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 4:16 pm
Air at 14.7psi and 300k has a certain specific internal energy, but no potential to do work on earth. Air at 30psi and 600k has double the specific internal energy, ...

Is that a typo? My intuition says you have doubled BOTH temp and pressure, so the energy will be 4x ?

VincentG wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 5:08 am Tom please don't derail this thread with Carnot. I was referring to thermodynamic formulas being able to accurately predict the outcome of systems. Whether or not it accurately describes the real mechanisms involved may be up for debate.

This is "fools" thread is it not? Are you "fool"?

He brought up the Carnot equation in his OP

So starting at the first law the second law drops right into place:
Efficiency n=(∆Wf-∆Wr)/(∆Qin)=(Th-Tc)/Th

...Carnot and Stirling are the target to shoot for, thermodynamically. Real engines will be worse.

Hardly a "derail" of the thread.

Your statement, whatever you intended, came across as an endorsement.

Aside from that your above statement is self contradictory.

Or please explain the difference between "systems" and" real mechanisms".

The whole damn thread is about "Tom's" supposed "struggles" with the math "Qin=Wout and...Win=Qout" you know.

Don't know where you get off saying I'm off topic.

MikeB wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 5:31 am

VincentG wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 4:16 pm
Air at 14.7psi and 300k has a certain specific internal energy, but no potential to do work on earth. Air at 30psi and 600k has double the specific internal energy, ...

Is that a typo? My intuition says you have doubled BOTH temp and pressure, so the energy will be 4x ?

Don't question the math! You can't deny the math! Even if it's wrong you know.

Ok bring up whatever you'd like, I was looking forward to focusing on internal energy.

At the very least could you not be infantile. Its roughly 3 people here vs. the entirety of established thermodynamics.

VincentG wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 6:28 am Ok bring up whatever you'd like, I was looking forward to focusing on internal energy.

At the very least could you not be infantile. Its roughly 3 people here vs. the entirety of established thermodynamics.

I would not call "fools" bogus efforts at "math" the entirety of established thermodynamics. And I didn't bring up Carnot or the efficiency formula, "fool" did, as well as highlighting "Tom" as supposedly "struggling" taking Matt's statement out of context as if I'm struggling, or ever struggled with "fools" haywire "derivations".

I'm rejecting his invalid, self referential pointless and meaningless, screwed up backwards excuse for so-called math outright.

I would really prefer not to engage "fool" at all, but he either follows me around posting his drivel on my threads or he starts his own topic about "Tom", so unfortunately I have no option but to interject or allow myself to be misrepresented by some "stalker" with an obsession.

This thread isn't about "Tom". It is about internal energy and all people's struggles with understanding it. You erroneously interpreted the opening post as being about you. Your troubles were pointed out by another poster, I was complementing you on being like everyone. Your stuck up attitude has now pointed out your delusions of grandeur.

You misrepresent everyone on this site, and soapbox your misleading belligerent opinions in everyone's threads. You lack scientific logic. I tolerate it in your own threads by striving to stick to science there. You call me and my points names. Here I see no reason to ignore your libel and potty talk. Grow up, be nice. Quit being so sensitive and stop whining. Your strawman cherry picking is horrendously extraneous. You have value here, take constructive criticism as a complement, not as a challenge, as most self actualized men and women do.

VincentG, thanks. Your are correct here. Tom seems to want to further his ranting in other people's threads. I thought I was bringing peace into the opening post. He sure misunderstood it. All I can do is try.

MikeB wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 5:31 am

VincentG wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 4:16 pm
Air at 14.7psi and 300k has a certain specific internal energy, but no potential to do work on earth. Air at 30psi and 600k has double the specific internal energy, ...

Is that a typo? My intuition says you have doubled BOTH temp and pressure, so the energy will be 4x ?

Internal energy is measured by temperature only. U=MCvT. Double the temperature, double the energy, or vice versa.

Temperature and pressure are related and analysed by the following equations:

PV=nRT
P1V1/T1=P2V2/T2
P1T2=P2T1
P2=P1T2/T1

In other words for energy to raise the temperature linearly, at constant volume, pressure follows linearly with it. For constant volume, double the energy, double both the temperature and pressure. Yes I struggle with this too. Thanks for asking. Good question.

Internal energy is measured by temperature only. U=MCvT. Double the temperature, double the energy, or vice versa.

Temperature and pressure are related and analysed by the following equations:

PV=nRT
P1V1/T1=P2V2/T2
P1T2=P2T1
P2=P1T2/T1

In other words for energy to raise the temperature linearly, at constant volume, pressure follows linearly with it. For constant volume, double the energy, double both the temperature and pressure. Yes I struggle with this too. Thanks for asking. Good question.

The problem I see with that is that T=PV/nR so if T increases initially, there is a subsequent calculation where pressure must be considered and adjusted for.

Fool wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 7:24 am This thread isn't about "Tom". It is about internal energy and all people's struggles with understanding it. You erroneously interpreted the opening post as being about you...

Well my name was the only name you singled out for specific mention.

Just FYI, no I'm not struggling with "internal energy". IMO You're concept of it is haywire so as I said, please leave me out of your conversations and I'll have no reason to interject.

And BTW as far as other people's threads I'm quite respectful, when Stroller for example wanted to take me out of the conversation on Vincents thread, I asked Vincent, he indicated he wanted everybody's input., as he told you again recently, but from his recent comments it appears he's changed his mind.

Carry on, and please leave me out of your onversations and we won't have a problem

Tom I do value everyone's input but only when it is professional. You routinely initiate or escalate personal attacks against character or motives.

Tom Booth wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 4:45 am So why struggle to post 'obscure symbols" when it would obviously be a simple matter to post the correct, universally accepted and well understood equation?

Isn't it obvious? I haven't been able to post them. Either they don't post, or they don't post the way I know how to post stuff. This is a minor cherry picked strawman point about the logical fallacy of my posting style, and nothing to do with internal energy or the logic of the post.

The point here is internal energy is vibrations, temperature. Heat is not. All equations clearly separate them, even when you quote them.

Internal energy is not temperature. For a gas, internal energy and temperature are related but not the same thing. Saying that "internal energy is... temperature" is just wrong.

Q is a quantity of energy in Joules, W is a quantity of energy in Joules.

Temperature is not a quantity, it's an average. A 16 ounce glass of water at 100°C does not contain the same quantity of energy as as a five gallon pot of boiling water at 100°C

Temperature is not a quantity of energy.

If you add 300 joules of heat or work to a model LTD you are not going to bring the working fluid temperature up the same number of degrees that you would adding the same 300 joules of work or heat to a 25 kilowatt engine.

Temperature is not joules of energy.

Heat, work and internal energy are all measured in Joules because fundamentally they ARE all the same thing: energy.

Temperature is not an actual quantity of energy.

You happily and with complete abandon substitute 300 joules for 300 degrees in your various attempts at your "derivation". As above, you are careless about your notation. Qez Qcz etc. just making stuff up without clear definitions.

The more complicated you make it the easier it is to pull a "switcheroo" which even Matt Brown called you out on.

Temperature is the measurement of internal energy, scaled by mass and specific heat. In an engine of constant gas mass and type, mass and specific heat are constant, so the internal energy is directly related to temperature. No "switcheroo" intended or supplied.

My equations are put forth with the understanding that I may have errors. They have been found, I've tried my best to correct them. You implying them to be a "switcheroo" is very close to libelous. My intentions here are for learning, no evil intended. Please stop bringing up cherry picked errors as if that somehow implies all my logic is flawed. That attempt on your part is more than one logical fallacy.

Matt although calling out an error, also said he understood what I was getting at. He went beyond the errors. He did not fixate on them, and he has complemented some of my best points.

The real problem is that I keep having to defend myself from someone like you, rather than defend just the logic.

So when VincentG writes you a blank check saying: "... the math is sound. Things can be computed accurately, that can't be denied"

Sorry but math can easily be fouled up, misapplied, misunderstood, screwed around with and deliberately abused in a thousand different ways and should always be checked and rechecked and compared with reality through empirical experiment, not just given Carte blanche, especially when dealing with "fool" and his IMO, intentionally deceptive "derivations". and number juggling in general.

If a mathematical derivation and empirical experimental results don't agree, guess who wins?

If experimental results don't conform to some 200 year old efficiency formula that was based on a fallacious theory of heat and has never been empirically tested or verified I think it's perfectly justified to question the mathematical formula that repeatedly resulted in wrong predictions for experimental outcomes.

As flawed and fouled up as mathematics can get, I still trust VincentG in general, over your logic and Mathematics handling ability. You are all over the board, and repetitively have shown lack of ability, knowledge, education, and comprehension. Perhaps you could learn it one day. Your belligerent posting style has gotten quite a bit worse in my thread. Perhaps one day you will also learn to be polite. And VincentG is miles more polite. Thanks Vincent.

I make no claims that my equations are perfect, they are the best that I can do given the time allotted, and the help in reviewing them after posted. They are meant to be the same as found on line and from 1970's and 80's memories. I only hope someone finds them useful. They are nothing that haven't been put forth before by better scientists. You may just be denying it out of spite, a direct attack on me rather than from any kind of understanding on your part.

I can only assume that you attack me and trivial little errors because my main logic is correct. Thanks. That's great compliment. Good day to you sir.

you asked to keep your name out wrote:Heat, work and internal energy are all measured in Joules because fundamentally they ARE all the same thing: energy.

Don't you think that is a little bit like saying a bicycle and an airplane are the same thing, because they are both measured in miles per hour?

Temperature is a measurement of internal energy. Pressure and volume change are a measurement of work. Temperature change is a measurement of heat, depending on what type of temperature change, heat verses work. Separating them is the lack of calling them the same. My intention wasn't to equate temperature to internal energy, it was to point out the very close relationship the two have. And to display the more distant relationship heat has, and work, pressure and volume. Yes it could have been said better. The best I can have is that this is more apparent now after your question of my logic, and hopefully not buried in your attack on my style and character.

Fool wrote:

They are meant to be the same as found on line and from 1970's and 80's memories. I only hope someone finds them useful. They are nothing that haven't been put forth before by better scientists. You may just be denying it out of spite, a direct attack on me rather than from any kind of understanding on your part.

I do not initiate personal attacks on anyone VincentG.

My criticisms have been directed towards the Carnot efficiency limit which I consider a mere historic artifact at this point.

But that mathematical boondoggle is so near and dear to the heart of some people they take my opinions about this mathematical equation (hardly, actually just a temperature difference) personally and launch personal attacks on me, my experiments, my character, ability to carry out simple experiments etc. etc.

Other people have made that personal, I'm just standing my ground and call it as I see it.

What fool says here is true: "They are nothing that haven't been put forth before".

Well, right now he's putting forth the same bogus nonsense, in defense of past errors and repeating the same mistakes.

The so-called Carnot efficiency baloney is what I disagree with, but some people so closely identify with it they get upset I don't give the so-called "LAW" the same reverence. I can't really help that.

Perhaps you should work on the capacity to agree to disagree and move on with your work.