Stirlingengineforum.com

Bumpkin wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 10:02 am (...)
All he needed was an open mind and respect for cause and affect. Lack of that respect is, of course why we need laws, but if you have enough respect you can tactfully wait until nobody’s watching and do what you want.

Bumpkin

Maybe "cause and effect" is somewhat in question these days, but generally, assuming it exists, seems like a good rule of thumb, which is probably my biggest objection to the "Carnot Limit", as it has no identifiable cause.

Conservation of energy demands the energy put into a system, leaves the system in equal measure in one form or another including "work" output, friction, vibration, or whatever.

The Carnot formula insists, supposedly, that out of all the heat going into the engine only 20% or whatever can come out one way as "work" and the other 80% for some reason must come out some other way into the "cold reservoir" and does not account for friction loses and such at all.

The cause/effect relationship or reason is unclear.

How can the temperatures precisely limit engine efficiency?

Yes, it seems pretty obvious you can't get out more than you put in, but the Carnot limit says you can only get out, under the absolute best conditions, with zero friction loses, 20% of what you put in.

Is it coincidence that 20% is just the temperature difference on the kelvin scale? No, it's just a simple derivation. The high temperature is 20% higher than the low temperature. Of course this varies with temperature, but I'm talking LTD running on hot water type temperature.

With heat as "caloric" a cause can be imagined. A fluid flows down. So the height it can fall makes at least a plausible hypothesis.

With heat as energy, that half baked assumption falls apart.

But, it also does not hold up experimentally. If it did, it might be worth looking for a cause, but in my book, if it doesn't hold up experimentally that's where it ends. You can't assign a cause to a non-phenomenon.

MikeB wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 2:28 am Goofy - the problem is this:
If for a moment, we ignore the "work done" on/by the piston, then what keeps the motor running? The simple answer is the alternating change in pressure of the working gas. What causes that change in pressure? The smaller reason is change of volume from the piston, but the larger reason (in most motors at least) is change of temperature due to moving the working fluid from hot area to cold.
If the cold end isn't colder than the hot end the pressure will never change, and the piston will never move.
Therefore, if the cold end doesn't remove heat from the working fluid, the cold end will heat up over time until equilibrium is reached...

Conversely, if we assume that cold end does nothing, then the only way for the motor to keep running, is if the work done by the piston removes exactly 100% of the energy that the hot end puts in.

This all is quite logical and fairly obvious, and I think true.

In particular the last sentence: "if we assume that cold end does nothing, then the only way for the motor to keep running, is if the work done by the piston removes exactly 100% of the energy that the hot end puts in."

Generally, though, that last logical conclusion is dismissed offhand as preposterous as a "violation of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics" rather than being subjected to experimental testing.

In every experiment I've been able to conceive and carry out so far over the past three years, the engines keep on running. Sometimes they seem to run better, sometimes maybe the same or not quite as well, but they all manage to keep on running.

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpx2 ... OWvk1G2CQY

Of course, These engines are far from 100% efficient in actual fact, in practical terms. In many cases most of the heat supplied never even makes its way into the engine. Some is conducted away through the engine body to the air, and much of the heat that IS converted to mechanical motion or "work" turns almost immediately back into heat through friction, but none of these avenues for lost heat necessitate the engine having a "cold reservoir" or "sink".

The corollary to that point, is that the hot end will tend to be self-regulating (though maybe not always sufficiently!) - heat transfers faster (apparently) between items that have a large temp difference than a small difference, so if the working fluid starts to heat up, presumably the rate of transfer will decrease?

MikeB wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 8:19 am The corollary to that point, is that the hot end will tend to be self-regulating (though maybe not always sufficiently!) - heat transfers faster (apparently) between items that have a large temp difference than a small difference, so if the working fluid starts to heat up, presumably the rate of transfer will decrease?

True. Infact, at times, the likely scenario would be that the heat flow could temporarily reverse, at or near TDC when compression is at a maximum.

Tom Booth wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 6:51 pm

matt brown wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 5:55 pm Tom, how about some simple old world math where eff = output/input as in simply measure work out vs heat in ? No waterfall, tug o' war, or calculus req'd...

I think we've already discussed a number of perceived problems in doing that.

How to get a verifiably accurate measurement of heat "in" and work "out" being the main issue(s).

VincentG for example pointed out recently, in his estimation:

Most likely, only a small fraction of that heat is entering the engine, and after that the engine acts as an insulator itself, being a contained pocket of air with a foam block in the middle.

To make an accurate measurement of actual heat in vs. heat "rejected" would be very difficult.

How do you propose overcoming such objections?

Similar objections have been raised regarding the measurement of actual work output, or even how to define "output".

Also there seems to be some variation as far as what constitutes "work".

Some of the literature on the subject use the term "useful work", apparently making a distinction of some sort.

Tom seems to think his experiment is valid because heat in and work out can't be defined. LOL perhaps all the successful engines built up until this date are all exceeding the Carnot limit based on the misinformation that heat and work are undefinable.

Two ways to measure work out. Dynamometer, and indictor diagram. The first measures total useful work, the amount we care about. The second measures thermodynamic work, work the gas does, before the mechanical losses are added.

The heat input can be measured two ways. One is the total heat supplied, the one we must pay for, measured by fuel burnt or electricity Joules or Watt hours measured. The second is the heat transfer through the hot plate, measured by the temperature of the outside and inside of the hot plate.

When you have those two values, work out and supplied energy. We will reconsider your temperature anomaly.

Dynamometer: Torque and RPM.

Fool wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 9:59 am ...
When you have those two values, work out .. blah blah blah... We will reconsider your temperature anomaly.
...

I could care less what you or "we" consider or don't consider.

Your concerns are not my concerns. Do your own experiments.

Seems like you have nothing better to do than gawk at whatever I'm doing all the day long. Get a life.

Tom Booth wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 10:43 am

Fool wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 9:59 am ...
When you have those two values, work out .. blah blah blah... We will reconsider your temperature anomaly.
...

I could care less what you or "we" consider or don't consider.

Your concerns are not my concerns. Do your own experiments.

Seems like you have nothing better to do than gawk at whatever I'm doing all the day long. Get a life.

For the record, when you quote me, leave it as I wrote it. Your constant editing is libelous. My words did not contain, ".. blah blah blah..." It is your incoherent ad homonym editing. Please be more scientifically accurate. That is the least you can do here.

As far as what you "care" about. Unimportant here. You ask, many times, for proof or why. We have given more than our share of science here. Your opinion now is that you can't support your opinion. It doesn't matter. Either put forth science here or stop the libels. For your own good, if not out of politeness and truth.

Once you start measuring power out of these engines you will start understanding why we say what we say. Untill then it's just inconclusive data. Not necessarily wrong, just insufficient.

I'm going to tell you a little secret. Your opinions here aren't better than anyone else's. Eliminating people out of disrespect or administrator interaction is not helping this site. Just remember that other people being wrong is no reason to disrespect them. Your actions here are very disrespectful of people that are trying to understand, and of there educations and thermodynamics forefathers.

Try to remember that if someone's opinion irritates you it's probably because you are afraid they might be right. You've bitten off a sizable task when you attack all of thermodynamics, especially when you have little knowledge to back your claims. Lighten up. You have plenty of talents observable here. Being accepting of others opinions won't hurt you any, and even if wrong on some.

As the famous California teacher said, if you don't know how to do fractions or multiply, he can't teach you calculus in one year. People coming here aren't going to learn what you know in one year. Be polite. Please.

Sorry,

Fool wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 11:00 am "..." (Blah blah blah blah) "..."

(edited for noteworthy content)

Fool wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 11:36 am ...Your actions here are very disrespectful of people that are trying to understand, ...

You're obviously not "trying to understand" anything.

Fool wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 11:36 am ...
Being accepting of others opinions won't hurt you any, ...
...

I accept others opinions.

I'm constantly saying "your entitled to your opinion" or "we can agree to disagree". But that is not sufficient for others who insist on trying to "educate" me and refuse to leave me alone. Try in every conceivable way to prove me wrong, break me down, insult, slander, ridicule, poke fun at, tease, mock, straw man, etc. etc. on and on in these relentless "attacks" that supposedly are not attacks, just trying to do me a favor, set me straight, correct my "mistakes" or whatever.

If somebody makes a valid point that makes sense, I'll accept it, or do an experiment to test it, but I don't accept blatant manipulation, gas lighting, lies, fabrications, misrepresentations etc.

Quite often the "help" people insist on cramming down my gullet is something I've already considered and thoroughly investigated 10 years ago but these know it alls with big heads think I'm stupid because I don't accept some fallacy "everybody knows" when it is actually a fallacy.

Driving posters away opens the door for new posters to which your job, as educator, starts up at the beginning.

As I've tried, you have identified an anomaly that bares further investigation. But it still may fit nicely into 200 year old and current theory.

Your methods of discourse here suffer from the same problems you accuse others of. Mostly it revolves around opinion. As I'm putting forth here as well. That is why I stive to put mathematical theory and examples, in a simple to fathom form.

That is why I ask for it in return. Examples are PV diagrams, mathematical theory and numbers, timing diagramed, indicator diagrams, ideal modeling, adding little bits of reality to those models more and more, separation of experimental factors, testing in a vacuum, oven, fridge, or thought experiments to provoke thought. Avoidance of analogy when possible.

I can tell, and I'm sure others here can too, that you have a brilliance few others have. I think that is why I, we, stay here hoping to help. Even the smartest people make errors. Those errors can be pointed out even by the least educated people, at times. It does take a two way street. I've spent hours thinking about what you've said here and have changed my understanding, learned, because of your posts. I am grateful. It may seem not so, and is frustrating at times, however that frustration goes both ways. And calling someone a "know it all" does mostly damage. Remember, we are humans here not "perfect angels". Don't let the bastards grind you down. Please. You will probably have to start over, again and again. Pease go with you man.

Fool wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 11:35 am Driving posters away opens the door for new posters to which your job, as educator, starts up at the beginning.

As I've tried, you have identified an anomaly that bares further investigation. But it still may fit nicely into 200 year old and current theory.

Your methods of discourse here suffer from the same problems you accuse others of. Mostly it revolves around opinion. As I'm putting forth here as well. That is why I stive to put mathematical theory and examples, in a simple to fathom form.

That is why I ask for it in return. Examples are PV diagrams, mathematical theory and numbers, timing diagramed, indicator diagrams, ideal modeling, adding little bits of reality to those models more and more, separation of experimental factors, testing in a vacuum, oven, fridge, or thought experiments to provoke thought. Avoidance of analogy when possible.

I can tell, and I'm sure others here can too, that you have a brilliance few others have. I think that is why I, we, stay here hoping to help. Even the smartest people make errors. Those errors can be pointed out even by the least educated people, at times. It does take a two way street. I've spent hours thinking about what you've said here and have changed my understanding, learned, because of your posts. I am grateful. It may seem not so, and is frustrating at times, however that frustration goes both ways. And calling someone a "know it all" does mostly damage. Remember, we are humans here not "perfect angels". Don't let the bastards grind you down. Please. You will probably have to start over, again and again. Pease go with you man.

It is not my job to "educate" you or anyone else. Especially not intractable self satisfied egoists who already think they know more than everyone else and can't imagine they themselves might have something to learn rather than trying to "help", by imposing their own "superior" knowledge and opinions on everyone else.

I mostly just do experiments, video recorded. People can form their own opinions as far as I'm concerned. Please stop trying to force YOUR opinions down my throat.

You asked. Sorry, if they are incongruent with yours. This is an open forum.

Call my knowledge "superior" isn't helping you or me. Your knowledge and mine are equal in that our points are based on what we have learned. I as well as you and others here try to learn things from others, and our own experiments.

You have a temperature anomaly. Insulation appears to make an engine run cooler. In some cases, your engines appear to run cooler than ambient. At least one increased in temperature. How does that all fit in? TBD. To Be Determined.

Fool wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 5:44 pm You asked. Sorry, if they are incongruent with yours. This is an open forum.

Call my knowledge "superior" isn't helping you or me. Your knowledge and mine are equal in that our points are based on what we have learned. I as well as you and others here try to learn things from others, and our own experiments.

You have a temperature anomaly. Insulation appears to make an engine run cooler. In some cases, your engines appear to run cooler than ambient. At least one increased in temperature. How does that all fit in? TBD. To Be Determined.

You started posting to this 6 month old thread out of the blue. I didn't ask you anything.

Please stop posting to my threads, then complaining that my threads are dominating the forum.