Stirlingengineforum.com

Peter Lindemann's video on Tesla's cold hole appears to make the claim that his refrigerator can cool ambient air down to -34 with a COP of ten or more. The Carnot theorem calculates out to a maximum of about 5. If you buy into his scheme be sure to check his specifications for COP and temperature difference ratings. To be sure you are getting what is claimed. Otherwise Peter is just boasting.

Tom I apologize, I was apparently just respecting your lack of privacy by not posting the free energy web site, which you haven't given in this discussion.

In the last three weeks Tom has filled the sciforum website with four more pages of second law bashing and incohesive Tom Booth monologue, dismissing the answers he gets from very good people. Tom still hasn't built and working model.

The only person disrupting good building practices here is Tom booth and his incorrect assumptions and denials.

Jack there is a difference between healthy scientific skepticism and science denial. I am skeptical of the second law, but it appears reliable as an upper bound for heat engines. At least, until a real engine breaks that limit using reliable scientific procedures. Any denying of it before then is discarding science. Science is a mixture of theory and testing that tends to increase the reliability of a conclusion.

If testing goes against a theory, one must determine if the theory is wrong, or the testing is wrong. Often it is the testing. Often it is the theory. Often it is both.

Tom has peer reviewed his testing, and many good scientists have rejected his conclusion. The recommendation is, to not publish, instead do more testing.

Peter Lindemann's claims need more testing. His promises and claim's, if turning out false, are grounds for charges of fraud. Carnot's Theorem tells both of them to tread lightly with their claims. Asking for funding for schemes that have scientific road blocks knowingly puts any failure in the area of investment fraud. It's okay to spend your own money on a snowball's chance in hell, though your spouse might disagree. It is not okay to entice others with fraudulent claims to get funding. I only ask that you be careful, and not bring the website down with you.

Fool wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 5:26 am ...Tom still hasn't built and working model.

...

My experiments have been primarily using commonly available off-the-shelf model Stirling engines, sometimes with a few common sense modifications, such as eliminating sources of error in measuring heat transfer through the working fluid, such as replacing highly conductive steel or aluminum parts with non-heat conductive parts, or adding a regenerator to an LTD to make it more compliant as a true "Stirling".

These have all been "working models" that demonstrate what you call "a temperature anomaly", or lack of any measurable "waste heat", or at least a quantity of "waste heat" far below that predicted by the Carnot limit calculations based on the ∆T.

So what "working model" of what exactly, do you propose I build?

I'm not the one claiming that a toy engine with an efficiency of 21% constitutes "perpetual motion".

I don't think a Stirling engine is a "perpetual motion machine" if it were 99.9999% efficient.

You claim if the Carnot formula suggests, due to the ∆T an engine can only be 10% efficient then if it is 10.5% efficient it's "perpetual motion".

That's utterly ridiculous and short of perpetual motion by 90%

Fool wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 5:26 am Peter Lindemann's video on Tesla's cold hole appears to make the claim that his refrigerator can cool ambient air down to -34 with a COP of ten or more. The Carnot theorem calculates out to a maximum of about 5. If you buy into his scheme be sure to check his specifications for COP and temperature difference ratings. To be sure you are getting what is claimed. Otherwise Peter is just boasting.

Tom I apologize, I was apparently just respecting your lack of privacy by not posting the free energy web site, which you haven't given in this discussion.

In the last three weeks Tom has filled the sciforum website with four more pages of second law bashing and incohesive Tom Booth monologue, dismissing the answers he gets from very good people. Tom still hasn't built and working model.

The only person disrupting good building practices here is Tom booth and his incorrect assumptions and denials.

Jack there is a difference between healthy scientific skepticism and science denial. I am skeptical of the second law, but it appears reliable as an upper bound for heat engines. At least, until a real engine breaks that limit using reliable scientific procedures. Any denying of it before then is discarding science. Science is a mixture of theory and testing that tends to increase the reliability of a conclusion.

If testing goes against a theory, one must determine if the theory is wrong, or the testing is wrong. Often it is the testing. Often it is the theory. Often it is both.

Tom has peer reviewed his testing, and many good scientists have rejected his conclusion. The recommendation is, to not publish, instead do more testing.

Peter Lindemann's claims need more testing. His promises and claim's, if turning out false, are grounds for charges of fraud. Carnot's Theorem tells both of them to tread lightly with their claims. Asking for funding for schemes that have scientific road blocks knowingly puts any failure in the area of investment fraud. It's okay to spend your own money on a snowball's chance in hell, though your spouse might disagree. It is not okay to entice others with fraudulent claims to get funding. I only ask that you be careful, and not bring the website down with you.

Your activities, stalking, harassment, intimidation, threats of legal retribution, fraud charges, character assassination, etc. are nothing more than suppression of research. Why are you making a federal case out of someone doing a few simple objective experiments with model engines?

You disgust me.

And now again, apparently, threats against this website: "bring the website down".

I have little doubt you are in some way behind the current state of affairs here.

Tom Booth wrote:These have all been "working models" that demonstrate what you call "a temperature anomaly", or lack of any measurable "waste heat", or at least a quantity of "waste heat" far below that predicted by the Carnot limit calculations based on the ∆T.

The expected temperature rise and shutdown of a LTD Stirling Engine with an insulated cold plate has not been observed as was predicted. That is an anomaly, and a temperature anomaly. You have only measured temperatures. You have not measured Qh, Qc, nor Work Output. Since none of those three have been measured, only assumed, your connection with Carnot is erroneous. All three need to be measured for a double check of those measurements, by seeing that they are within agreement of the first law. Only if you measure heat in and work output can you challenge the second law and Carnot. Sorry to say that. Kudos for finding the anomalies.

I don't know where the heat is leaking out. It is obvious that it is because you are not getting any more than 0.02 Watts of work output. Definitely less than 1 W.

Tom Booth wrote:So what "working model" of what exactly, do you propose I build?

You keep jumping from those anomalies to Carnot/ second law bashing and Tesla cold hole worshipping without building a single cold hole or cold hole engine combination.

Tom Booth wrote:I'm not the one claiming that a toy engine with an efficiency of 21% constitutes "perpetual motion".

No. But your claim is a violation of the Carnot Theory bringing with it all the implications of that Theory. Your claim is extraordinary. Your scientific practices aren't yet up to the claim. Many have tried to suggest what could be an improvement. You refuse the ideas, but continue with the claims, often with derogatory wording.

Tom Booth wrote:That's utterly ridiculous and short of perpetual motion by 90%

You use the Carnot Theorem incorrectly. To get a perpetual motion device out of a 90.5% Carnot busting by 0.5 it would require a heat pump with a COP of 10, or more working at the same temperatures. Ten or less is not a violation of the Carnot Theorem as you have set up in this example.

If Carnot predicts 10% it would take a COP of ten or more and an engine efficiency of 10% or more, or both higher, for perpetual motion.

Tom Booth wrote:You disgust me.

Off topic, but, please don't hold back. Get it all out. Tell me what you really think.

Tom Booth wrote:Your activities, stalking, harassment, intimidation, threats of legal retribution, fraud charges, character assassination, etc. are nothing more than suppression of research. Why are you making a federal case out of someone doing a few simple objective experiments with model engines?

Also off topic. I am not nor will I ever be:

Stalking, harassing, intimidating, threatening, charging, you. I am explaining the correct way to use classical thermodynamics and mathematics. In this website and the science website. I'm letting you alone in the free energy website. I am nowhere else. Just those two. I'm only a guest elsewhere.

If you are concerned about your character it is from your rejection of Carnot, and insistence that the second law people are after you. There are no "second law people". There is no cult. People, as educated scientists, apply science to the points you're making. If your points are erroneous, that is your doing. In other words, the character assassination is your own doings and attitudes. I've been extremely patient with you.

Tom Booth wrote:And now again, apparently, threats against this website: "bring the website down".

I have little doubt you are in some way behind the current state of affairs here.

Normally I'd be shocked that someone would make such baseless and fraudulent claims against me, but I've learned to expect it from you Tom. If I could, and I can't anymore than anyone else, I would help this forum. I even like you Tom. I just don't agree with your use of.mathematics and logic in all areas. I leave you alone in areas you make sense.



Tom appears to have cherry picked one of my posts. Here is more of it:

Fool wrote:It is not okay to entice others with fraudulent claims to get funding. I only ask that you be careful, and not bring the website down with you.

It can be clearly seen that it is my well placed concern for the well being of this site. I post this as a necessity for self defense against blatant lies. Concerns for the well-being of the website are not threatening in any way shape or form.


.

Fool wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 5:48 am

Tom Booth wrote:... You have only measured temperatures. You have not measured Qh, Qc, nor Work Output. ...

How do you propose measuring "heat" other than through temperature readings?

Just FYI, and only because the owner/moderator of the forum is apparently not available. We have had discussions regarding, you "fool", your activities here as well as mine, and I told him if my posting my experiments here was causing him headaches I could post elsewhere or start a forum myself. It's easy enough to set up PHPBB on virtually any server or web host.

This was his response:
He did have quite a few issues with you though, as I understand it he was debating, or on the verge of banning you again. Just before his apparent disappearance.

He urged me to carry on as usual and that if he ever had any problems with me he would contact me personally through PM, which he has never done.

He was also concerned about some kind of threats of someone taking legal measures against him. Your the only one here who has talked about taking legal measures.

You ARE quite obviously stalking and harassing and making vague predictions about all kinds of calamity that might befall me or this forum. You've been caught in a number of outright lies, twisting of facts, gaslighting.

All because I post a few kitchen table experiments.

Contrary to your insinuations, I don't make any "claims" that are not plainly visible, recorded on video. Very simple, easy to carry out experiments any five year old could reproduce.

Hopefully the owner of the forum will return and follow through on banning you permanently and things can get back to normal.

Tom Booth wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 8:57 am

Fool wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 5:48 am

Tom Booth wrote:... You have only measured temperatures. You have not measured Qh, Qc, nor Work Output. ...

How do you propose measuring "heat" other than through temperature readings?

You don't have an answer to that "fool" do you? Just another of your lies. A misrepresentation of the facts in your ongoing efforts to discredit my research.

Tom, please do not confuse lack of response with intelligence on your part. When someone asks a question of me that has several very obvious answers, I am besieged by awe and pause as to why anyone would be so rhetorical. Perhaps one day you will learn to think and answer your own questions.

You question and response reminds me of a conversation I was having with a very smart and good friend. It went something like the following.

He said, I don't use Safeguard bar soap because it dries my hands.

I said, to keep it from drying your hands, just use less soap.

He said, "How do you use less soap?"

During the wonder and pause I was having contemplating why he would even ask such a ignorant question, he blurted out. (It was only about three seconds), ha, I got you, you don't have an answer for that do you. And he maniacally laughed.

I guess I felt sorry for him as I never answered that there are several ways to use less. I let his baby-shipness have his bottle.

I feel bad for not explaining a very useful bar soap technique.

There are no real ways to measure heat directly, nor temperature directly. There are several types of measurements that can be used to calculate heat, or temperature.

Heat supplied, not Qh. Qh is heat supplied minus heat bouncing off the hot plate. For example the heat supplied by your steam generator. Labeled as 80 W. Measuring electricity supplied to the steamer can be used to verify that, Volts and Amps, to calculate Watts.

You could put a one Watt resistor into the hot side, insulate the hot side and assume one Watt of heat is supplied. Or even measure Volts and Amps for that too.

Qc, can be measured by the time it takes to melt a measured size of icecube.

But if you want to use temperatures, note it must be plural, you must measure enough and they must be in the correct places. One temperature on the cold plate won't give a value for heat flow. Example, it is impossible to know how much heat is flowing out of a cold plate that is at 27.degrees C.

To get a sense of heat flow two or more temperatures are needed on a conductive or insulated material, preferably on the inside and outside.

The above is a response to your straw man diversion, and not the main point.

Since you don't have key needed data all you have is temperatures, absolutely no calculable values for Qc. And only an assumed Qh and heat.supplied. Your claim of zero or colder is an anomaly not supported by heat flow data. As to why it appears colder in your videos, that is another anomaly.



But it gets worse, you have zero work measurements. The least you could do is glue some magnets to the shaft or flywheel and place some aircore coils near enough to measure voltage and current produced for different load resistances. Think milliwatts milliamps, and microhorsepower.

This is a Stirling Engine discussion. I will reject your insults and threats.

Banning me or you from this website would be bad for truth and purpose here. No threats from me. Just concerns and science. Sorry if science goes against your beliefs. Don't blame me, the messenger.

I don't have any problems with you doing or posting your home experiments here. The one other website I joined, only joined because you invited me there. Sorry that there are smart scientists there besides me. Your name calling there, also noted and rejected.

Could you explain a bit more about your aircore coil method of work output measuring?

Jack, aircore copper coils are just that, a coil of copper wire with no core material. In other words, no iron. No electrically conductive materials would be used, instead, cardboard, paper, wood, plastic, etc... The idea is that no energy is wasted by the magnets passing any conductor. No eddy currents, or iron hysteresis losses. The drawback is that it takes bigger magnets and copper coils to get the same power out at the same RPM's. For a test set it's beneficial because it gives a truer reading at the expense of being larger. The other tradeoff is higher I^2•R Losses. But those can be calculated.

Tom, I forgot to mention the best way to measure heat and work in and out of an engine without measuring temperatures. Indicator diagrams. They are from pressure at known volumes.

Both heat flow and work flow, can be measured/determined from an indicator diagram. The diagram must be cut up by drawing little squares and marked for constant entropy and constant temperature, using PV=nRT, etc... although not needed it can also be marked for "buffer pressure" and "effective Work" can be measured, those have no effect on work output, or efficiency.

That is why they were a BIG DEAL when Watt started using them. It gave the first measurements of what is happening inside an engine.

Fool wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 12:12 am ...
There are no real ways to measure heat directly,

Exactly

Glad you finally admit it, moron.

nor temperature directly.

Of course there is, nitwit.

Thermometers, infrared cameras, thermocouples, to name a few.

That's not what the following person said:

Just musing but in general a thermometer is measuring a reaction to "heat", that is an expansion of a liquid or metal after taking in some heat.

viewtopic.php?p=18507&hilit=Thermometer ... 446#p18507

Fool wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 7:26 pm That's not what the following person said:

Just musing but in general a thermometer is measuring a reaction to "heat", that is an expansion of a liquid or metal after taking in some heat.

viewtopic.php?p=18507&hilit=Thermometer ... 446#p18507

And that person says: "I'm just musing".

And your still an idiot.

There is nothing in that post that says you can't measure "temperature" which is well defined as the "average kinetic energy".

Saying I'm not taking measurements is a lie.

True. But I never said you don't take measurements. I said you haven't supplied key data, such as work output, or a calibrated indicator diagram.

You are very good at musing.

Fool wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 10:15 pm True. But I never said you don't take measurements. I said you haven't supplied key data, such as work output, or a calibrated indicator diagram.

You are very good at musing.

Anyone who is competent and not a lazy tightwad can calculate or find out whatever they want to know from the RAW data; the temperature readings, and other information provided: the model of engine which they could easily obtain, any necessary modifications made, testing procedures etc. etc. all shown and/or described in detail.

Everything I did in my experiments is recorded on video, so anyone who cares to can replicate the experiments themselves and measure any and all additional information they might consider important.

You should be able to calculate whatever "heat flow", produce whatever charts and graphs or whatever you like from the data provided or by running the experiment yourself.

My experiments are what they are and show what they show. What I observed anyone can observe, by watching the video and/or replicating the experiments.

What is interesting to me is that the cold plate temperature measured COLDER than the "cold reservoir", which indicates to me that it might be worth going forward with the difficult task of constructing and testing some scaled up version of an "ambient heat engine".

You can dismiss it as a "temperature anomaly" if you want. I don't care, you're an idiot. Your concerns are no concern of mine.

I'm simply providing the raw video footage and any other reasonable information requested for anyone who might be interested.

Your requests are not reasonable or even possible. Nobody can measure "heat flow".

There is no such thing.

You can't measure something that doesn't exist.

You can't dip a paddle wheel into a river of heat and count the rate of "flow" by the turns of the paddle. There is no such thing as a heat flow meter.

Heat is not a fluid running like a river. It is the transfer of energy of particles of matter. The energy of the material or substance CAN be measured at least generally "on average" by temperature.

From that, the temperature readings, with a bit of other information, the energy transfer can be calculated or made into charts or graphs or you can do with that whatever you like. Or if there is some data missing, run your own experiments.

You're a do nothing lazy useless disgusting human being. It is not my job to make up for your laziness, lack of resources and incompetence.