Sockmonkey wrote: ↑Fri Jun 12, 2020 12:13 pm
You get work out of heat by giving it somewhere to go and making it do something for you in order to get there. You can compare it to a water wheel in that way. It's usually easiest to make a hot spot and use the environment as the cool place the heat tries to flow through. Lower pressure also counts as "colder" in that the heat can now occupy more volume.
That certainly does represent the conventional wisdom.
Tesla, though, was not exactly conventional. He was certainly familiar with what everybody knew about heat engines, the second law of thermodynamics and all that, but he had a different idea about how heat engines work, and to my knowledge, his ideas have never been adequately put to the test. As for Tesla, he wrote: "a misfortune befell me in the burning of my laboratory, which crippled my labors", but I think he left behind enough information to move things forward today, if his theory was correct.
More than anything, I would say; heat in a heat engine is like the kinetic energy of billiard balls on a pool table:
- Translational_motion.gif (398 KiB) Viewed 11040 times
The idea is not so much giving these hot molecules somewhere to go but rather giving them something that they can hit and move.
If a ball strikes a solid immovable object it bounces off retaining its kinetic energy. But if it hits something that can move, the energy is transferred to the other object. In the case of a heat engine, the moveable object is the piston. The "heat" or kinetic energy, transferred to the piston, does not need anywhere else to go.
Tesla wrote in that regard: "But let us reflect a moment. Heat, though following certain general laws of mechanics, like a fluid, is not such; it is energy which may be converted into other forms of energy ... If the process of heat-transformation (in a heat engine) were absolutely perfect, no heat at all would arrive at the low level (or heat sink), since all of it would be converted into other forms of energy."
Think of the piston being hit by little billiard balls on both sides. Heat the gas on one side and the kinetic energy of the air molecules increases, knocking the piston out, but as each molecule hits it loses its "internal energy" and gets "cold", stops moving, but other fast moving "hot" molecules continue to hit the piston, also loosing energy, until there is equalization of energy on both sides, but the piston, having momentum continues moving, and more molecules continue to strike it and loose energy, causing the gas in the engine to become even colder, again creating an imbalance, which allows molecules outside the engine to knock the piston back inward. It seems, ALL of the heat added to the gas in the engine has been lost, and then some! The heat does not flow through the engine, rather, now more heat must be added to repeat the cycle.
That was Tesla's basic argument, that heat is not REALLY a fluid, therefore it does not REALLY need a "sink" to flow into.
There does need to be an initial temperature difference though. Why? because there must be some way of adding heat in order to create an imbalance to start the piston moving, but once moving, the heat does not need to flow through the engine into the sink, so a Stirling engine running on ice does not add heat to the ice. Rather heat is added to the engine to push the piston as previously described. The heat is converted into the kinetic motion of the piston, which might be further transformed into electricity, if the engine is driving an electric generator. The heat has been transformed into a different form of energy, now more heat can be added to continue the cycle, but no heat has been transferred to the ice!
Your description is certainly familiar to me, and is the generally recognized and accepted way that Stirling engines are supposed to work. But I think that maybe Tesla was right, and everyone else, for the past 200 years has been wrong.