How is this possible?

[Fool]

.

Maybe so. But the same could be said about you.

However, I've provided, math, logic, links, descriptions of how to use the data. You've provided banter.

One of these days you will get off your high horse and quit complaining about my lack of authority, as if you have any (you don't), and just look at the science.


.

[Tom Booth]

The point of the video is that the acrylic is not a bottleneck because other parameters of the engine are. ...

I disagree.

He talks about the acrylic almost exclusively in connection with solar or light powered engines.

The acrylic is transparent to visible light, so it is not a bottleneck when "using a light below, or the sun above" he says.

I know from my own testing and research that acrylic pretty effectively blocks conductive heat as well as nearly all infrared.

Try using your infrared thermometer or thermal camera to look at a red hot heating element through acrylic. All you get is readings from the acrylic surface, no readings of the heating element behind the acrylic. I've also read several papers that confirm this. Acrylic blocks most infrared except a few narrow bands.

So all he says IMO is the acrylic is not a bottleneck when it comes to running the solar type engines on a visible light source. Infact, the acrylic lets visible light through, into the engine so well, the solar engines start up faster he says.

Convective heating of the air inside the engine is a bottleneck. The acrylic is not. It is better, as it lets light through to heat the interior of the engine directly.

Anyway, even if he believed heat is converted so a "sink" is not necessary, I doubt he would go out on a limb with that topic. He does not address that subject at all.

Anyway, thanks for clarifying your intent and/or opinions.

[Tom Booth]

....
The scientific data is stacking up against Tom.

The opinion of an anonymous poster on an internet message board giving their interpretation of the, at best, ambiguous and inconclusive speculations about unidentified "bottlenecks" on a YouTube video hardly constitutes "scientific data".

.

Maybe so. But the same could be said about you.

However, I've provided, math, logic, links, descriptions of how to use the data. You've provided banter.

One of these days you will get off your high horse and quit complaining about my lack of authority, as if you have any (you don't), and just look at the science.


.

When I see you doing any science whatsoever I may give your assessments some consideration.

I am doing experiments and making observations, reading, studying and observing what others are doing.

What have you done for anyone to observe?

Have you conducted a single experiment of any kind with a modern Stirling engine?

All you do is rehash 1820's obsolete speculation based on Caloric theory.

[Fool]

.

Modern thermodynamics theory is far and above the 1820's pre understandings. It is well beyond your current ability. That is why you consistently bash it erroneously. The reason you keep referring to Caloric theory is because that is your level of education. Your experiments have done little if any to advance thermodynamic theory, or discover anything that isn't already known. The reason it is new to you is because you haven't learned it yet. I've done my learning and the experiments already. Case in point, even the Stirling Brothers built engines that run better than any you've built or experimented with. Phillips even went further than they. And you still don't understand or believe them. A pity.

.

[Tom Booth]

.

Modern thermodynamics theory is far and above the 1820's pre understandings. It is well beyond your current ability. That is why you consistently bash it erroneously. The reason you keep referring to Caloric theory is because that is your level of education. Your experiments have done little if any to advance thermodynamic theory, or discover anything that isn't already known. The reason it is new to you is because you haven't learned it yet. I've done my learning and the experiments already. Case in point, even the Stirling Brothers built engines that run better than any you've built or experimented with. Phillips even went further than they. And you still don't understand or believe them. A pity.

.

When it comes to heat engines in particular, thermodynamics is still based on Caloric theory.

Sadi Carnot, who reasoned purely on the basis of the caloric theory, developed his principle of the Carnot cycle, which still forms the basis of heat engine theory. Carnot's analysis of energy flow in steam engines (1824) marks the beginning of ideas which led thirty years later to the recognition of the second law of thermodynamics.

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

Carnot abandoned Caloric theory, but Kelvin and others brought it back, in spite of the overwhelming scientific evidence that it was wrong. The result is the convoluted hodge podge of obsolete theory known as classical thermodynamics today.

The worst of it all is the ridiculous, "Carnot Limit", which has zero experimental validation.

[Tom Booth]

.

I've done my learning and the experiments already. ...
.

Sure you have.

How about posting a photo of the last Stirling engine you experimented with.

You show zero comprehension of basic principles of how these engines operate, forget about in depth, advanced analysis.

You're an arrogant hack with nothing to show. All you do is regurgitate high school science curriculum.

[Fool]

.

How would you know the difference between highschool curriculum and college curriculum? I can tell. You have neither.

.