Stirlingengineforum.com

"Please cite an "engineering" reference that backs up your"

No. Go find it yourself. I've done do on many points in the past. You'll just deny it if I look it up.

Try looking up "artificial refrigeration".

.

Fool wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 8:20 pm "Please cite an "engineering" reference that backs up your"

No. Go find it yourself. ...
.

Of course. What a loser.

My refrigeration and engineering sources refer to water as "Refrigerant 718" and "the oldest refrigerant known to man".

You think you can just make up whatever lies you want off the top of your head and everyone will believe you.

Your a delusional lunatic.

Fool wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 8:16 pm

Tim Booth wrote:You stalk me across the internet to pull something I said from another forum and misrepresent it here.

...

How is quoting you a misrepresentation? Its what you said....

...

No, you did not originally quote me, you paraphrased and completely misrepresented what I said (which you now call "a poor choice of words") and now as usual you're just lying and making shit up.

Fool wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 8:16 pm .... It doesn't generate enough work to lift water up to the height of the glass rim to fill it.
...

I'd be interested to see you prove that baseless statement. Have you done the experiment?

You won't even spend $6.00 on the toy to find out.

I think it probably could drive a ratchet wheel of some kind to lift enough water to keep itself running. What proof do you have that you're right and I'm wrong?

As usual, you just make up "facts" off the top of your head.

You wish. I'll leave it here for others to decide.

Fool wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2024 12:12 am You wish. I'll leave it here for others to decide.

I had this toy as a boy, my father picked up at a rest stop novelty shop while on vacation.

When we got home we put it on the fireplace mantle. I often stood on a chair to watch it run and give it water occasionally.

Very occasionally.

As I recall, it required topping off with maybe an ounce of water once or twice a day.

When the fluid in the birds head rises and then falls the bird swings back with quite a bit of force. Probably lifting as much fluid every minute as it requires in water in 12 hours.

So, let's see, 1 oz divided by 60 (60 minutes in an hour. 1 cycle per minute) divided again by 12 so 60x12=720

So the bird would need to lift 1/720 th of an ounce of water each cycle.

Approximate guesswork.

Personally, I don't think it would have any problems at all doing that.

Perhaps. It's only complete guess work. If you had a little more knowledge of classical theory, you could compute how much power that would take. But you don't.

Nothing but a wild guess. Sorry.

.

Fool wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2024 11:36 am Perhaps. It's only complete guess work. If you had a little more knowledge of classical theory, you could compute how much power that would take. But you don't.

Nothing but a wild guess. Sorry.

.

I know "classical" aka obsolete/flawed/fallacious theory well enough, but I don't rely on guesswork.

Unlike you, I'm an experimentalist and don't put theory above empirical evidence or deny what can be directly witnessed for all to see.

One more project/experiment to add to my to-do list

Should be interesting.

I don't think there is anything flawed with the theory of how much energy it takes to lift an amount of water a specific height. Or how much power that is in an amount of time.

.

Fool wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2024 12:34 pm I don't think there is anything flawed with the theory of how much energy it takes to lift an amount of water a specific height. Or how much power that is in an amount of time.

.

So what is your opinion here based on?:

Fool wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 8:16 pm .... It doesn't generate enough work to lift water up to the height of the glass rim to fill it.
...

Presumably your general Carnot/2nd Law "It is IMPOSSIBLE ....." mantra

Science/Mathematics.

Your opinions here are not any better than opinions as well.

Fool wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2024 1:19 pm Science/Mathematics.

What specifically?
Do you have any actual data? Measurements? Power input/output?

Anything at all?

No, just your chronic "It's all impossible..." no matter what it is so-called "Law".

Or do you have some other science/math to back up your assertion?

No?

Didn't think so

Fool wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2024 1:22 pm Your opinions here are not any better than opinions as well.

I'm not claiming otherwise.

Your the one making the claim your statement is based on "science/mathematics".

I'm not so arrogant as to imagine my opinions constitute a "Law" of nature, so I rely on experiment.

But at least I've made some direct observations as described above. It's a functional heat engine, so why shouldn't it be able to pump a drop or two of water per hour?

It might?