Stirlingengineforum.com

Fool wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 10:43 am Good luck with that. I would like to see a relevant physics sentence that doesn't include or imply a mathematical concept.

Mathematics does not use scientific methodology.

In some ways science and math are opposites. Not that they cannot compliment each other, but the scientific method does not always require mathematics, and identifying science AS synonymous with mathematics is certainly not accurate.

Physics is a subset of science/mathematics. Depends on how you define pure science, applied science, and natural science.

Mathematics is the general term for all science. Physics is one of the natural sciences, and is is subset of all mathematics.

Fool wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 12:26 pm Physics is a subset of science/mathematics. Depends on how you define pure science, applied science, and natural science.

Mathematics is the general term for all science. Physics is one of the natural sciences, and is is subset of all mathematics.

Baloney.

This is an example of putting forth personal opinion as if it were fact.

I doubt you can find any support (credible independebt reference for example) for this statement: "Mathematics is the general term for all science".

I'll save you the trouble:

Since when has this website banned personal opinion?

Can you find any support for your opinion on insulating the cold side? Your alleged demo is it. Many refute it. Any that follow you, by definition become a free energy quack.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relatio ... nd_physics

Considerations about mathematics being the language of nature can be found in the ideas of the Pythagoreans: the convictions that "Numbers rule the world" and "All is number", and two millennia later were also expressed by Galileo Galilei: "The book of nature is written in the language of mathematics".

"Numbers rule the world" and "All is number"

Fool wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 2:41 pm Since when has this website banned personal opinion?

Can you find any support for your opinion on insulating the cold side? Your alleged demo ...

Experimental results are not "opinion", and actual experiments are not "alleged"..

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLp ... Q9pQZzY7Eu

The Carnot theory that heat engines capitalize on a "flow" of heat traveling between hot and cold "reservoirs" like water flowing down hill, was an unverified assumption.

Based on that assumption, if true, it's perfectly logical to ASSUME that blocking the flow of heat through the engine would quite obviously prevent the engine from running, causing a bottleneck, overheating, seizing up of the engine, failure to "reject" enough heat to cool itself sufficiently to run. The heat would be unable to "flow through" from the hot to the cold"reservoir".

I simply noticed that there was some disagreement between scientists in regard to the nature of heat and how heat engines operate going back to at least 1900 when Tesla's article on the subject appeared in Century magazine.

Tesla wrote in his article that the Carnot/Kelvin theory was wrong. He suggested that heat did not need to flow through a heat engine at all, but as a form of energy could be, or would be CONVERTED into other forms of energy.

No need for the heat to "flow through" the engine at all.

After a rather thorough search through the entire history, I could find no historical account of any actual EXPERIMENTAL resolution to the controversy..

The Carnot water wheel (Caloric) theory was advanced by Kelvin, though knowing full well that it was wrong, and he admitted that the entire theory of heat would need to be revised SOMEDAY.

How lazy and irresponsible to just kick the problem down the road.

I just did a few simple experiments that should have been carried out a century or more ago.

These are the results:

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLp ... Q9pQZzY7Eu

Blocking, or attempting to block the supposed "flow through" of heat to the "cold reservoir" has no effect. In fact, sometimes the engine runs measurably better. Preventing heat loss improves the performance of a heat engine. Go figure. Who would have thought.

Sometimes the "sink"side of the engine even appears to remain at ambient or even cool to below ambient temperature.

The scientific method requires experimental verification of a hypothesis and also sharing the results of experiments.

I cannot help it that the so-called "fathers of thermodynamics" framed their theories and opinions as "LAWS" without proper experimental validation. That is not the scientific method.

Again, an experimental outcome is not an "opinion".

Real experiments are not "alleged".

I don't think I need to apologize if I happen to be the first to carry out such simple common sense experiments.

As much as you may not like the results, they are what they are. I'm just reporting. Posting video of the actual results. That is not "opinion".

Video recorded experiments are not "alleged".

Fool wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 2:41 pm Since when has this website banned personal opinion?

...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relatio ... nd_physics

...

Nobody says opinions are not welcome.

But you have a persistent habit of presenting your opinions as irrefutable fact that you demand everyone else must agree with or be damned. Anyone disagreeing with "fools" opinion is a "free energy quack".

As it is your own chosen citation speaks against your opinion, devoting an entire section to the topic:

Physics is not math

Despite the close relationship between math and physics, they are not synonyms...

LOL..

But you have a persistent habit of presenting your opinions as irrefutable fact that you demand everyone else must agree with or be damned.

Those that go against the second law of thermodynamics, or the first law, are free energy quacks. It's not my opinion that they do so. It is a mathematical outcome, and supported by most engineers.

Mathematics is not the same as physics. Physics is a subset of mathematics. Just as all dogs are not the same as a Chihuahua, a Chihuahua is a subset of all dogs.

Just as all free energy quacks aren't second law deniers, but all second law deniers are free energy quacks. Proven mathematically.

My apologies for not putting in quotes on the first paragraph of my last post. They are Tom's words, back at him.

Offtopic, but I don't know where else to ask.

How do you guys get the images in your posts like Tom above?

In the full editor, scroll just past the 'submit' button. There is an 'attachment' tab. Clicking on that, and scrolling, gives an "add files" box. Clicking on that allows you to select your own files and images. Selecting a file brings up the word "done" in the upper right of your screen. Clicking on that brings you back to the final options. Scrolling a little you will find a box near the right side that says "place in line". Clicking on it will put the code on the line to display the file.

Although it seems to work, it's a bit of a mystery and takes some practice to get right. Use the "preview" option until you get it to work. Clicking back on your browser to cancel or retry if needed. Practice on a very small post first. Options for text under the photo are also presented but not required.

If you quote a person's post, it seems to not automatically repost the photo. Hence the bit of mystery. It tends to place it inline where your curser is. So be careful. Would love to see some photos so it's worth figuring out.

If the files are too large, it won't let you select them, or display them, or tell you. You will need to reduce their resolution/size. I have not done this so don't have enough experience to comment productively. Good luck. Cary on.

It can't be demonstrated by looking at a post quote. So just keep trying.

"Experimental results are not "opinion", and actual experiments are not "alleged".."

Wrong. Experimental results are historical facts, hence alleged. Scientific facts are repeatable. Claiming to have repeated an experiment doesn't change that. Pons and Fleischmann found this out the hard way and became laughing stocks for their opinion based conclusions. Your alleged findings, that I accept as bonafide, are nothing more than a temperature anomaly. Your fact-less conclusions are nothing more than opinion, just the conclusions.

Carnot's analogous waterwheel, is nothing more than a colloquial opinion base description for educational purposes. It is not the only reason the Carnot rule is acceptable. I've tried to explain, you've denied, rejected, ignored, badgered it.

Scientists hardly disagree on the following equations:

∆U=Q-W
n=(Th-Tc)/Th=W/Qh

None of that says 'waterwheel'. You've failed to gather data on the right-hand side W/Qh.

You have measured a: Th, and Tc. Great. You can calculate maximum thermodynamic efficiency, 'n', using the Carnot Theorem. Nothing more.

You have not measured:
Qh, nor anyway to calculate it.
W output, nor anyway to calculate it.
Efficiency, hard to measure directly.
Qc, U, ∆U, Tgas-hot, Tgas-cold, Th-inside, Th-outside, RPM, Torque, generation output Voltage Amperage, input Wattage etc...

Your alleged experimental results lead to zero scientific conclusion except an interesting temperature anomaly, and only because it is counter to expectations. You have put no predictive numbers into the experiment, so there is zero knowledge as to whether the anomaly is outside your range of measurements or not. Some of your experiments show an increasing temperature on the cold plate. You seem to cherry pick away from that data.

How many maximum Watts will a LTD engine absorb into the gas, at 300 RPM? Not much. Some of your engine tests weren't even running that fast.

Again, when you complain of others posting opinion, the mirror of irony reflects back on you multiple times.

Your belligerence and stubbornness are not justified by your amateur garage explorations. I am only mildly interested in the anomaly. It doesn't look like it is outside of classical thermodynamic theory. Hopefully this is encouragement to do better, and be nicer. I am only here in an attempt to remove misunderstandings of classical theory, and ponder good ideas for construction.

Classical theory is not based on opinionated waterwheel analogies, it is based on those equations.

Fool wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 9:52 am

Tom Booth wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 8:03 am

Fool wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 2:41 pm Since when has this website banned personal opinion?

Nobody says opinions are not welcome.

But you have a persistent habit of presenting your opinions as irrefutable fact that you demand everyone else must agree with or be damned. Anyone disagreeing with "fools" opinion is a "free energy quack".

Those that go against the second law of thermodynamics, or the first law, are free energy quacks. It's not my opinion that they do so. It is a mathematical outcome, and supported by most engineers.

Mathematics is not the same as physics. Physics is a subset of mathematics. Just as all dogs are not the same as a Chihuahua, a Chihuahua is a subset of all dogs.

Just as all free energy quacks aren't second law deniers, but all second law deniers are free energy quacks. Proven mathematically.

Like I said.

Your rant above is a perfect example.

I don't "deny" anything.

Scientists propose all kinds of theories all the time about the nature of the world around us. The basic nature of matter for example. Is it Quanta, "atoms", vortices, "vibration", Strings, etc. Lots of theories, yet all these seem to coexist in relative harmony and mutual respect and tolerance. All have their advocates.

Scientific theories, as a rule, are, sooner or later overturned, updated, corrected, modified, improved upon, adopted or discarded.

But "fool" declares anyone questioning his interpretation of his infallible "LAW" is ipso facto a "quack".

IMO, having to build such a bulwark is a sign of insecurity and a lack of integrity.

https://youtu.be/yvfAtIJbatg

IMO the "Carnot Limit" (as currently interpreted) appears to be "Cargo cult" science. Mathematically it's just a thermometer reading. A temperature difference. How exactly, such a ratio is supposed to "limit" any engine efficiency is not stated.

What is the physical mechanism? How is such a limit actually imposed? Not even a theory.

Logically, if true, one should be able to find a certain mathematically precise minimum quantity of "waste heat" leaving a Stirling engine at the "sink".

I've done dozens of experiments trying to demonstrate the "Carnot Limit". I've simply reported the results.

I don't claim my results are "perfect" or "infallible", they are what they are. As far as I've been able to tell, the cold side stays cold, scarcely any, if any, heat "flowing through' at all.

It appears Tesla was right. The heat is converted.

Call me whatever you like, it doesn't change the results of my experiments, and out of my own sense of truth and personal integrity I'll continue to report such results as accurately and objectively as I can, regardless of the scathing, slanderous criticism and ridicule and abuse that happens to subject me to at the hands of people like this "fool", or anyone else.

I've conducted these experiments with complete and utter transparency so that anyone who cares to can repeat them, improve upon, correct, re-do, use more sensitive or more accurate instrumentation, or whatever, but my results are what they are. I'm not going to change or retract anything just because "fool" is of the opinion that anyone who does an experiment the results of which seem to call into question "established science" is a "quack".

He's basically calling the scientific method itself quackery and every modern scientist exploring some alternative theory a quack.

Fool wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2024 7:03 am ...
Classical theory is not based on opinionated waterwheel analogies, it is based on those equations.

In the case of the "Carnot Limit" temperature difference ratio, the equation was simply a mathematical representation of Carnot's (Caloric) theory of heat as a fluid that flows "down" from a hot "reservoir" to a cold "reservoir".

While there is obviously nothing wrong with the mathematics, a temperature difference is a temperature difference, the way that is interpreted and applied to engine "efficiency" is certainly open to question, IMO.

Without Caloric theory, there isn't even any longer a theoretical physical basis for it.

Kelvin admitted the theory had undeniable flaws and that the whole theory of heat would need to be revised eventually.

Well, personally, I would like to make some progress now.

200 years of settling for "the best we have to go on" doesn't cut it for me. I need to know how these engines REALLY work, not some "Cargo cult" theory from 200 years ago.

Tom Booth wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2024 7:57 am
In the case of the "Carnot Limit" temperature difference ratio, the equation was simply a mathematical representation of Carnot's (Caloric) theory of heat as a fluid that flows "down" from a hot "reservoir" to a cold "reservoir".

The key word there is "was".
At the time, that theory was based on the best available understanding.
That has been improved upon, but the equation itself doesn't rely on that theory in any way, as far as I can see.

But then again, as it is essentially just a "design guide", I really don't know why we are talking about it all over again - I for one would much rather talk about the smaller picture, the individual details like how fast heat/pressure actually transfers around an engine.

MikeB, yes.