Stirlingengineforum.com

.

Tim wrote:And you don't, and probably never will understand the similarities.

I understand the similarities just fine. The differences are what kills it.

Tom Booth wrote:Same idea when a gas expands isothermally to drive a piston to power an engine, in that case the heat intake is converted 100% to power output so heat is taken in but there is no rise in temperature because an equivalent amount of "work" in Joules goes out at the same instant.

Much of that is lost during the expansion, without work, as the air at high pressure is injected into the bin at a lower pressure. All it does is uselessly swirl, mix, and lift the water, in the bottom of the tower.

Tom Booth wrote:Heat is taken away from the drinking Bird by evaporation, but there is very little temperature change. Likewise ambient heat is absorbed at the base of the bird, but there is no increase in temperature above ambient. Heat goes in but is not apparent, obvious or measurable.

It actually can be observed and measured. Just watching the fluid rise in the birds neck is both observation and measurement. How fast it rises is an indication of power. How far it rises, maximum, is temperature. May need a longer tube to get maximum.

Tom Booth wrote:Then when the the air is released into the canisters it absorbs back heat as it expands, so the heat of compression is recovered.

Not really. The heat is absorbed back in at a lower temperature. Lower temperature heat input means less work output.

Tom Booth wrote:These heat transfers are nearly perfectly isothermal so there are no obvious temperature changes but the fact that a copious amount of energy is rapidly going in and being converted to mechanical and electrical power output is an inescapable logical and science based common sense conclusion following known thermodynamic principles.

Isothermal but not at the same temperatures. You really need to understand the general process of heat transfer, and how temperature difference is needed, and how a larger difference increases transfer. You need to understand how work quantity relates to process temperatures.

For the same expansion at a lower temperature, less work will be generated. For the same compression at higher temperature, more input work will be required.

Look at the PV diagrams for an engine cycle and a heat pump cycle, for help on understanding this stuff.

.

Fool wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2024 6:31 am .

There you go. Any challenge to the operation is not countered, it is removed. Not very open or honest. Ear marks of a scam.

.

Well, actually I was mistaken.

The video is posted twice, once as public and also in a playlist that is "unlisted" which just means it is only accessible if you have the link.

Both videos have some comments that are the same, but then they are separate.

I had originally posted to the unlisted video but when I searched for it again I got the listed version, so the posts are actually still there in the unlisted, which I found again through my YouTube comments history.

I wanted to reproduce the post with the mathematical "proof" here which was why I was looking for it again.

This is the link to the "unlisted" video I had actually posted on:

https://youtu.be/WhQ5SCQtOJ4?si=CWm6tVOKdrEZjgV3

It may not even be the same video.

.

Okay. I withdraw the accusation. My apologies.

.

Fool wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2024 6:58 am .

Tim wrote:And you don't, and probably never will understand the similarities.

I understand the similarities just fine. The differences are what kills it.

Tom Booth wrote:Same idea when a gas expands isothermally to drive a piston to power an engine, in that case the heat intake is converted 100% to power output so heat is taken in but there is no rise in temperature because an equivalent amount of "work" in Joules goes out at the same instant.

Much of that is lost during the expansion, without work, as the air at high pressure is injected into the bin at a lower pressure. All it does is uselessly swirl, mix, and lift the water, in the bottom of the tower.

Tom Booth wrote:Heat is taken away from the drinking Bird by evaporation, but there is very little temperature change. Likewise ambient heat is absorbed at the base of the bird, but there is no increase in temperature above ambient. Heat goes in but is not apparent, obvious or measurable.

It actually can be observed and measured. Just watching the fluid rise in the birds neck is both observation and measurement. How fast it rises is an indication of power. How far it rises, maximum, is temperature. May need a longer tube to get maximum.

Tom Booth wrote:Then when the the air is released into the canisters it absorbs back heat as it expands, so the heat of compression is recovered.

Not really. The heat is absorbed back in at a lower temperature. Lower temperature heat input means less work output.

Tom Booth wrote:These heat transfers are nearly perfectly isothermal so there are no obvious temperature changes but the fact that a copious amount of energy is rapidly going in and being converted to mechanical and electrical power output is an inescapable logical and science based common sense conclusion following known thermodynamic principles.

Isothermal but not at the same temperatures. You really need to understand the general process of heat transfer, and how temperature difference is needed, and how a larger difference increases transfer. You need to understand how work quantity relates to process temperatures.

For the same expansion at a lower temperature, less work will be generated. For the same compression at higher temperature, more input work will be required.

Look at the PV diagrams for an engine cycle and a heat pump cycle, for help on understanding this stuff.

.

You're the complete moron who needs help understanding this stuff. You're completely clueless as usual.

Go back to whatever rock it was you crawled out from under. Troll.

Fool wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2024 12:08 pm .

Okay. I withdraw the accusation. My apologies.

.

Why don't you make yourself useful then and do an analysis of the mathematics and explain why that analysis is right or wrong, should be right up your alley.

.

I guess it would take hours and hours to show why it failed when the second law violation already shows it. But, I've already given plenty of calculations showing plenty of doubt. I don't buy into schemes that show that doubt, especially with very limited engineering data provided.

In other words, if it pings my skeptic meter, I loose all interest in it, especially if reasonable data is absent, as it is in this case.

Of course, if some one were to pay me $500/per hour, door to door, plus trave and other l expenses, per diem, and a tool allowance, it be happy to go investigate as an engineering consultant for them. BSEE, BSME.

.

Fool wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2024 6:58 am ....

Tom Booth wrote:Then when the the air is released into the canisters it absorbs back heat as it expands, so the heat of compression is recovered.

Not really. The heat is absorbed back in at a lower temperature. Lower temperature heat input means less work output.

....For the same expansion at a lower temperature, less work will be generated.
.

I doubt that.

Cold air is more dense, less compressible, so "for the same expansion" would transfer more, not less force.

At any rate, anyone familiar with Stirling engines (everyone here besides you "fool") knows from experience that a Stirling engine runs just fine, if not better "on ice'. And increasing the temperature differential in either direction increases power output.

Compressing the air, transferring the heat of compression to the water, not only makes the compression process very efficient but it increases the temperature difference in both directions, refrigerating the air so it can expand much more from a cold condensed state as well as heating the water so the expansion can progress even further.

But what you really don't understand is how during a very slow isothermal energy transfer "expansion" itself is delayed or slowed to a crawl, but energy transfer and conversion continues.

It is the same principle as higher torque at a lower RPM. The expansion during the buoyancy "power stroke" is very slow but the power output is very high. Literally very high torque but very slow rotational speed.

Fool wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2024 12:29 pm .

I guess it would take hours and hours to show why it failed when the second law violation already shows it. But, I've already given plenty of calculations showing plenty of doubt. I don't buy into schemes that show that doubt, especially with very limited engineering data provided.

In other words, if it pings my skeptic meter, I loose all interest in it, especially if reasonable data is absent, as it is in this case.

Of course, if some one were to pay me $500/per hour, door to door, plus trave and other l expenses, per diem, and a tool allowance, it be happy to go investigate as an engineering consultant for them. BSEE, BSME.

.

In other words, you're just a useless TROLL.

Personally I'd be happy to pay you $500/hour just to keep your useless good for nothing Troll ass off this forum so things could get back to normal.

Obviously you only came here with a big Ax to grind and no intention of making any positive contribution.

This was your last opportunity at redemption as far as I'm concerned.

.

Your agenda here is obviously to misdirect good science habits with a ton of lies and scams.

.

I'm here to discuss Stirling and other type heat engines. That is what this forum is for.

These "buoyancy" devices have, in fact, been referred to as "Stirling engines" by at least some of those familiar with their construction and theory of operation.

You dismiss my kitchen table Stirling engine experiments as "impossible" or fraudulent in some way as well. You are obviously opinionated and highly prejudiced against the subject.

In other words, a "Troll".

Get lost.

.

You seem to excell at name calling. Grow up.

.

Fool wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 10:24 am .

You seem to excell at name calling. Grow up.

.

In your case "Troll" is not "name calling", it's just an accurate assessment of your character. You are a "Troll" by definition by general internet forums consensus. You are only here to heckle, derail and criticize the forum subject matter and disrupt conversation while contributing nothing useful or constructive. This is a Stirling engine forum not a Classical Physics forum

You prove that you are a "Troll' when asked to make any little contribution that might actually be of some small value you refuse. Not that your opinion or mathematical analysis is likely to actually be worth anything but if you actually cared about the subject matter you might at least try, but no, you are a Troll, through and through.

.

I haven't refused to produce mathematical proof that claims of this sort are fraudulent scams. I've refused to be pushed around by a bully, you Tom. In fact I've already give mathematical proof in this thread that proves what you've asked. Definite proof that their claims are impossible, as claimed. Definite proof that the basic premise is impossible. I've even shown a possible way to produce any valid power output, a way they are not doing. Possibly only one way, and similar.

The problem is, you. You don't comprehend it, or refuse to. So your attempt in bullying me to give you more and more and more "proof", will also be placed on the deniers deaf ears and ignorant unteachable brain.

If you want to see the proof again, reread the following:

viewtopic.php?t=5601&hilit=Truth

Unfortunately, you will also reread the libel of a professional science denier. Good luck.

.

.

A comment I translated from Russian on another video said, (I think?) that in Russia they are producing 2X more power than nuclear.

The gullibility of that poster never ceases to amaze me. This person thinks erroneously that I'm lying or have some agenda, but believes the Russians. Russian government too no doubt. This person believes with little questioning, and rallies with promotors of self powered over unity schemes, that are asking for handouts. But denies solid mathematics, that if he were smart enough, he could derive himself. Then plasters the erroneous comments as if true on social media. When all he needs to do is look up on the the Internet background information and do a quick check.

Russia is one of the largest producers of nuclear generated electricity. They produce in one year 223 TWh, of nuclear energy. 24-7 that is about 25,387,067,395 Watt hours of energy ever hour, with about 36 plants. To make that kind of power using 100 kwh buoyancy towers, as claimed, it would take 253,870 installations. To double it it would take 507,740, yes that is over 500 thousand towers. It would be producing 48% of all Russian power, as the nuclear is claimed to produce 19% of their power.

Do you think Russia has built that many in the last few years? Really!

https://www.google.com/search?q=russian ... e&ie=UTF-8

Generation mix: natural gas 514 TWh (44%); nuclear 223 TWh (19%); hydro 216 TWh (19%); coal 187 TWh (16%); oil 8.5 TWh (7%); biofuels & waste 4.0 TWh; wind 3.3 TWh; solar 2.2 TWh. Source: International Energy Agency and The World Bank. Data for year 2021.

Perhaps not. Perhaps it might be not so wise to jump on anything that you haven't researched at least a little yourself first.

In other words, grow up. Learn something. Be kind. Do you really think name calling a person that goes by the handle "Fool" is helping. He's or she's probably just laughing at the real fool.

.

.

Tom Booth wrote:This is a Stirling engine forum not a Classical Physics forum

Real engineers designing, real Stirling Engines, use either, wild guessing, or classical thermodynamics. Your choice. But if you choose classical thermodynamics, I can't stress enough the benefits of using it correctly. You don't. Instead you resort to denial, and name calling. The condition is called cognitive dissonance. Your beliefs are challenged by scientific mathematics so your brain resorts to attacking the bringer of news. It would be wiser to learn, rather than deny. Troll behavior is attacking the poster, not the logic.

Everything I state here is from my understanding of what classical theory is. You on the other hand seem to post nonsense and rumor. Furthermore, you've challenged anyone to prove otherwise as if you are some grand master of knowledge. Clearly not. You continue on down the dark side more and more.

I am not here to discredit you. I'm here to put forth the correct use of mathematics and thermodynamics, applicable to Stirling Engines. You are here often attempting to erroneously discredit Carnot, classical Thermodynamics, education establishments, and many scientists of the past, without their ability to defend themselves. I've seen you erroneously drive off other posters over your misunderstanding and lack of calm. You discredit yourself all on your own better than anyone or I could do. Thank you for showing your colors so vibrantly.

.