You keep thinking that anytime energy is put into an engine you get to keep it. The energy you are putting in is to return the engine to zero. When you get done putting the work in the cycle will be back at the starting point. In other words, Qcz.
Work goes into the gas compressing it. It would get hotter above Tc and Qcz unless that heat of compression is let back out. This works out as 100% tit for tat, work in heat out, and is 25% lower than the forward stroke because it is 25% lower in temperature. It is the way isothermal processes work.
Not only is that illogical, it would be a violation of conservation of energy because the same energy doing the compression is the same heat (thermal energy) being expelled.
Yes, conservation of energy, and zero change in internal energy for a complete cycle, science upheld. Work in equals heat out for isothermal compression. Internal energy back to Qcz, the starting point. If the expansion stroke isn't isothermal, more heat will need to be rejected.
What distinction you are trying to make between "input heat" and "attempted supply heat" I don't know.
A Joule is a joule.
Your temperature reading experiment where you used an 85 W steamer, supplied 85 W to an engine that cannot absorb any more than gan 0.005 Watts. The amount supplied is mot the amount entering the engine. Even if the heater is in the engine, heat will be escaping from the hot end directly to the atmosphere. So not all the supplied heat will turn into work and DQc, some will be rejected directly out of the hot plate.
Infrared heat goes through a acrilic wall like it's not even there, and many other materials.
And a Joule is not a Joule. I thought by now you'd understand why a Joule of heat is not as useful as a Joule of, Work, or Electricity. Some, up to all, of the Joule of heat must stay as heat, when any attempt to convert it to work is performed and the Joule of heat, or what's not converted exists at a lower temperature than before the conversion. In other words, after conversion, some of the Joule, is work, the rest energy is colder. If it isn't colder, by heating up a Tc plate very slightly, the back work will be equal to the front work, adiabatic bounce, zero work to output, ideally. In reality, much worse.
A pendulum swing has equal front work and back work, hence, zero work output. Trying to get work from a pendulum stops it quickly. Just raise the weight on a clock to test this. Very little work to run a clock. Very small mgh, mass, to drop a short distance to keep it running. Yet the pendulum stopps quickly without it. Very little energy stored in the pendulum.
The more heat converted to work on expansion, the LESS heat remaining in the working fluid to necessitate "back work" to compress the gas, which would only be hot and expanded due to supplied heat (heat supplied to and entering the working fluid) that had NOT been converted to work.
Heat doesn't remain in the working fluid. What you are talking is internal energy. Internal energy remains constant during a isothermal expansion. And zero total change for a complete cycle.
Or the 80% energy stored in the atmospheric "buffer" outside the engine compressing the working fluid on the return stroke is the same energy being expelled from the working fluid from inside the engine.
Please leave 'buffer' and atmospheric pressure out of this discussion. I've already explained why outside effects completely cancel in the energy analysis of a complete cycle.
Tom, I maybe wrong about how you think in regard to the following, but please hear me out. I think you are battling the following beliefs :
1: 200 years of thermodynamics and engine building are somehow wrong.
2: 2000 year old mathematics, such as Calculus and graphs, are wrong.
3: Current science classroom education is wrong.
4: Your experiment can't possibly be wrong or even misunderstood.
5: You want to have greater efficiency, maybe even over unity, so everyone scoffing at such is wrong.
6: Being hands on educated is more important than classroom learning, and that no one with a classroom degree, not the easiest thing to get, has any hands on experience.
I will try to explain, in hopes that it starts people thinking.
1: A scientific theory is only as good as it is useful. If another comes along that is more useful, the previous will be scrapped. Science is mathematics. If the new theory doesn't have new better math, the old theory will continue. Case in point, relativity theory is more accurate than Newtonian theory, but Newtonian theory is still used where it is easier. Relativity theory is only used where the errors in Newtonian theory are too great.
2: The Egyptians used that mathematics to build the pyramids. Mathematical rigor has continued to confirm what we calculate and discover even today. Again, if something comes along that is more useful, it will be scrapped. Until then it is all we have. IMHO, if you can't beat it use it Schmitt Theory is a useful starting place for Stirling Engines.
3: Of course current education has errors and in it. They teach that in school. Tell you to watch out for it. Provide mental tools to look for it. Those tools are also useful to identify and expose charlatans.
4: This one is hard for anyone to swallow. The first rule of science is, beware of the fact that you will fool yourself more often than anyone else. I've caught myself by changing my mind set from how come I'm right, to why is this wrong. If it stands up to both, then quietly ask someone more educated/experienced than yourself. Spend a lot of time thinking about their input. If they disagree, it's probably you. If many many disagree, it is you, or your explanation. Try to understand them, you asked them for help.
5: Trying to prove you can do over unity before you can do over unity is self contradictory. No one will want to help prove something that appears unprovable. If continuing in this request, expect lots of resistance.
6: I have a classical BSME degree, but I've been repairing lawnmowers since I was 11 and cars since I was 13. All my own, and friends, mostly for free. My current mower is a John Deere F1145 diesel, plus 5 other riders that are running. Plus at least 5 that I haven't run lately and I'm suppose to be working on, and an uncountable number of smaller and walk behinds. More than a dozen vehicles. Army 6x6 Duce and a half. Excavator, backhoe Caterpillar bull dozer, Timber Jack skidder, saws, sawmill, pond system Chum Salmon incubators, ... Short list... Shall I continue? Fun!
I pretty much takes one to know one and I'm probably a fool for even trying to knock a fool straight, but I'm here as a friend. You ask to know. All I've done is display what I know. If you have better math modeling please present it. If not. Please stop the following :
Complete and utter nonsensical bullocks.
I'd really rather use math logic and experimentation. You seem to agree.