.
Tom Booth wrote:Now it's a "mythical contraption"?
It sure is. LOL
I don't know why this is so difficult for you. A refrigerator and a compressor work better, more efficient, if in a colder atmosphere. If you use either to warm a room to a higher temperature than outside, your compressor will be running hotter, using more energy for the same compression. The gas will need to be cooled, or be hotter. The diagram specifically said hot gas is captured, cool gas is injected. If you warm the compressor, as such, you will be substituting scavenging rejected heat, for less efficiency. It is a break even proposition, at best.
Tommy wrote:Heat is your energy source. You imagine there is some advantage to throwing it away. Not!
Temperature difference is your energy source. Temperature difference allows heat to flow into an engine. Heat is not something, it is a description of how external energy moves into internal energy.
Your infatuation with mystical 'over Carnot', is blinding you to observable data, and easy logic and mathematics. Those stubborn beliefs have produced, in you, a massive denial of science. You spread those falsehoods everywhere. I keep correcting your misconceptions and misleadings. Please learn. Stop being so blinded and stubborn.
The term is rejected. The heat comes from the increased internal energy from compression. If not cooled, it requires more back work. Ultimately as much as forward work. That is zero efficiency and zero work output, minus, on top of all that loss, frictional losses too. Friction and thermodynamic losses, happens to the point, Senft's comment, "most engines get less than 50% of Carnot.". Carnot is ideal, reality is significantly worse.
If you deny that consistently observed scientific fact, you are a science denier.
I'm still waiting for your mythical over Carnot contraption or even equal to Carnot. Please remit.
Tom Booth wrote:The heat isn't "thrown away". It's used to expand the cold air, to lift and circulate the water.
That is impossible. Cooling the compressor air down to atmospheric temperature can in no way then be used to heat fluid to 600F. Unless you have a mythical 'cold to hot pink invisible unicorn' contraption. Good luck with that.
If they put in a regenerator, maybe. Again, they haven't described one.
The heat isn't wasted if the heat needs to be rejected. It's just the price that needs to be paid to produce work in a warm atmosphere. If it were Pluto's atmosphere, you would not be complaining about an efficiency 95% or there abouts. If you used it to heat up your house on Pluto, the engine efficiency would drop to 20% or less. That would be just like on Earth
Your inability to work, or visualize experiments outside a warm pressurized atmosphere, leaves you empiricists to a stubborn unfactual denial of science.
That is tantamount to an empiricist's denial that the Earth is round because they can't fly into space. Thank you, I now have empirical evidence why science is more than empirics. Good job. That puts mathematics solidly in the realm of science. Thanks.
.