Stirlingengineforum.com

MikeB wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 12:45 am

Tom Booth wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2024 7:57 am
In the case of the "Carnot Limit" temperature difference ratio, the equation was simply a mathematical representation of Carnot's (Caloric) theory of heat as a fluid that flows "down" from a hot "reservoir" to a cold "reservoir".

The key word there is "was".
At the time, that theory was based on the best available understanding.
That has been improved upon, but the equation itself doesn't rely on that theory in any way, as far as I can see.

But then again, as it is essentially just a "design guide", I really don't know why we are talking about it all over again - I for one would much rather talk about the smaller picture, the individual details like how fast heat/pressure actually transfers around an engine.

Maybe we could allegedly do some alleged experiments, and get some alleged results.

Allegedly, I've allegedly heard that alleged people allegedly calling themselves "scientists" allegedly figure out allegedly how things allegedly - actually work.

Allegedly.

Fool wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 6:17 amMikeB, yes.

LOL

Tom, since this thread was started by me, and you now have violated one of the website rules and followed me in here, and, are providing nothing of value, are treating members with disrespect, I'd have to say that you must know the moderator personally, so you can get away with such blasphemy. Or you know he is no longer a threat, or MIA.

Perhaps one day your narcissism will get the better of you. Please vacate this thread. You add zero science to the discussion, and add little lately but meanness. You have used the word allegedly, in a couple of forms, eleven times in the span of two sentences plus an additional incomplete sentence. Do you want people to call you the "alleged" site member? Is that what you are hinting to us?

I have the ethical drive to defend this thread, and other posters, any legal way I see fit. Your detriment to this sight is wearing thin any reasonable tolerance by its members. This is not a warning, it is an observation.

I refer to, "LOL", that appears to be the reply to my encouraging MikeB with a simple friendly agreement. If my agreeing with MikeB is such a threat to you, couldn't you come up with some scientific support. You didn't, so MikeB's point stands. Good one MikeB, and thanks.

When you adhere to better meticulous laboratory procedures, instead of wild camera waving around, people will start listening to you. All you've done so far, is virtually identical to the second law denier's, and free energy quack's, lab practices. Measured power output is necessary, so far, zero zero zero. Wild camera wavings is not science, it just bolsters skepticism.

I'm sorry for being curt, but this is my thread and you've asked for it. Please leave it. You've now done it to all my treads and it's getting worse. I'm asking you politely to, please stop. You are making it difficult to want to make a new thread, because of the fear it will devolve into one of your typical tantrums with your misleading statements that Science is wrong.

Of course,

If your alleged actual "results" appear to be contradicting the Carnot limit theory, your research will be censored. You will be banned from publishing in any science forum, you will be barred from any and all potential funding, your reputation will go down the toilet as you are smeared and ridiculed and labeled a "free energy quack", which "fool" will claim you are by definition.

So whatever you do or just "talk about" it had better adhere to and conform with the Carnot limit theorem, or you will be subject to endless hounding and harassment from the likes of "fool" and his cronies.

This being "your" thread does not give you the right to criticize demean and ridicule others without them having recourse to respond.

When you and others bring up my name and my research in their discussions, I have a right to respond and defend myself, and my reputation.

This is infact according to you, a continuation of your other thread where you first started bringing up and attacking my "alleged experiments".

viewtopic.php?p=23540#p23540

So you have now devoted two threads to Tom's "alleged" experiments, but would seek to exclude "Tom" from the discussion.

Sorry, not happening.

Fool wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 2:41 pm ...
Can you find any support for your opinion on insulating the cold side? Your alleged demo is it. Many refute it. Any that follow you, by definition become a free energy quack.
...

Here you are attacking, not only me personally, but hundreds of people you have never met and don't even know, here and elsewhere.

My YouTube channel, for example now has a merger 672 followers. It's not enough you smear and attack me personally, but you do the same with any thinking person who shows any indication that they think I might have a good point.

Take "Goofy" for example, whom you pounced on and ran off the board the instant he had anything to say in support of my experiments.

Fool wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 9:12 am Tom, since this thread was started by me, and you now have violated one of the website rules and followed me in here, and, are providing nothing of value, are treating members with disrespect, I'd have to say that you must know the moderator personally, so you can get away with such blasphemy. Or you know he is no longer a threat, or MIA.

Perhaps one day your narcissism will get the better of you. Please vacate this thread. You add zero science to the discussion, and add little lately but meanness. You have used the word allegedly, in a couple of forms, eleven times in the span of two sentences plus an additional incomplete sentence. Do you want people to call you the "alleged" site member? Is that what you are hinting to us?

I have the ethical drive to defend this thread, and other posters, any legal way I see fit. Your detriment to this sight is wearing thin any reasonable tolerance by its members. This is not a warning, it is an observation.

I refer to, "LOL", that appears to be the reply to my encouraging MikeB with a simple friendly agreement. If my agreeing with MikeB is such a threat to you, couldn't you come up with some scientific support. You didn't, so MikeB's point stands. Good one MikeB, and thanks.

When you adhere to better meticulous laboratory procedures, instead of wild camera waving around, people will start listening to you. All you've done so far, is virtually identical to the second law denier's, and free energy quack's, lab practices. Measured power output is necessary, so far, zero zero zero. Wild camera wavings is not science, it just bolsters skepticism.

I'm sorry for being curt, but this is my thread and you've asked for it. Please leave it. You've now done it to all my treads and it's getting worse. I'm asking you politely to, please stop. You are making it difficult to want to make a new thread, because of the fear it will devolve into one of your typical tantrums with your misleading statements that Science is wrong.

...any legal way I see fit...

Is that a confession?

If you can't get the forum owner to censor the forum to eliminate opinions that differ from your own, you'll try to take legal action to have the forum shut down?

I figured that was probably you.

What a low life dirt bag.

It is not me.

Any legal and ethical defense. All my efforts are here in the public forum. I do not want you gone. However your libel and misleading discourse potentially could do you in from your own self destructive attitude.

Your comment about me driving Goofy out, seems to be baseless, unless you can provide proof. I commented on about two of his posts. In both I was either thankful, playfully complementary (calling him Brilliant Right) or both.

I have no problems with Goofy and pass on to him respect. As I do you, until you attack other's as if you have some justification to be rude.

Respect may be earned. Disrespect is unacceptable.

Fool wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 7:31 pm It is not me.
...

Coming from a pathological liar that means nothing.

I tell the truth. If I contact the board administrator it will be through a phone call.

Your libelous comments are baseless. The problem here is your fear of honesty.

Too bad. For you will have to live forever in your own deceit, never having trusted friends.

Again, you can trust me and others on this website. It is your own self delusion that propels you into the depths of your own conspiracies. The few that are here, and I am one, merely reflect standard thermodynamic theory in an attempt to make it easy for the non scientist.

Calling anyone a liar just deepens your denial and cognitive dissonance. Lighten up dude.

Fool wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2024 7:03 am "Experimental results are not "opinion", and actual experiments are not "alleged".."

Wrong. Experimental results are historical facts, hence alleged. Scientific facts are repeatable. Claiming to have repeated an experiment doesn't change that. ... Your alleged findings,.... are nothing more than a temperature anomaly. ...

So far it seems I'm the only person in history to perform these experiments and I've gotten consistent results.

If all avenues for alternative heat transfer are eliminated in a Stirling engine, zero heat is transfered through the working fluid. No heat whatsoever arrives at the cold side.

I've carried out these experiments in many different ways, using several different model engines and different temperature ranges with the same consistent results.

As an "anomaly" by definition is an inconsistency, this is not any "temperature anomaly".

At this point if I or someone else were to find heat transferring through the working fluid of a Stirling engine consistent with what was predicted through the Carnot limit equation calculations, THAT would be the anomaly.

Until more people repeat the experiments and get different results, the results I've gotten are the standard, expected result for this type of experiment and are consistent with Tesla's predicted outcomes as expressed in his 1900 article:

My results have been consistent in outcome and consistent with theory.

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 as it passes from a high to a low level....the heat is transformed in passing from hot to cold. If the process of heat transformation were absolutely perfect, no heat at all would arrive at the low level, since all of it would be converted into other forms of energy.

Fool wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 7:31 pm It is not me.

Any legal and ethical defense. All my efforts are here in the public forum. ...

Again, you just finished saying you would make a phone call to the forum "moderator".

Who has his phone number?

The only person I know of he mentioned calling his phone was the nut trying to get back into the forum after being banned.

The same nut threatening a lawsuit.

Just sayin'.

I'm sure he'd be very happy to here from you again.

Tom Booth wrote:Again, you just finished saying you would make a phone call to the forum "moderator".

I don't see myself needing to contact the administrator, whom I hope is having a nice vacation somewhere, or at least he and family are well. I have not called him. Nor have I any desire to have you removed. But you do confuse, my quote "If I contact the board administrator it will be through a phone call." With your quote "you just finished saying you would make a phone call..." Not yet, no "would" about it, just a very remote "if". I have a desire to chat friendly with he, and with you for that matter. You turned me down. ???

I think there are far more interesting things to talk with him about than you. I'm sure you would come up in any conversation, as you are an interesting character. In fact you seem interesting enough to have a nice friendly chat with too.

Tom Booth wrote:So far it seems I'm the only person in history to perform these experiments and I've gotten consistent results.

If all avenues for alternative heat transfer are eliminated in a Stirling engine, zero heat is transfered through the working fluid. No heat whatsoever arrives at the cold side.

No temperature rise has been detected, mostly. At least one had a temperature rise. You posted it as a temperature drop until you corrected yourself after identifying the reversed thermal couples. I can't disregard that temperature rise. More is going on, than zero heat coming out.

Tom Booth wrote:As an "anomaly" by definition is an inconsistency, this is not any "temperature anomaly".

I compliment you on discovering a temperature anomaly, meaning that a predicted temperature is refuted by your experiments. Good. Why? I don't know yet. The anomaly revolves around someone's prediction that if an engine's cold side is insulated it will get hot and stop. You have found that prediction false. That is the temperature anomaly. The anomaly from what someone else predicted and what you found. The question now becomes, Why?

Tom Booth wrote:At this point if I or someone else were to find heat transferring through the working fluid of a Stirling engine consistent with what was predicted through the Carnot limit equation calculations, THAT would be the anomaly.

I understand why you are interested in this direction of investigation, but I recommend treading lightly. The Carnot Theorem says nothing about how much a cold plate will heat up if insulated. It is more accurately a description of how much heat getting into the gas is converted to work. Where the nonconverted heat goes, isn't part of the formula. Yes a lot of people claim where the heat goes. The Carnot formula just how much comes out as work. To test for the efficiency, and how it compares to Carnot, heat in and work out must be measured.

You, by not treading lightly, now have the burden of extraordinary data to produce. You need to show, 100% conversion to work.

If you had treaded lightly, all you'd need to do was provide any measurements of work and heat on the same engine. You would measure an efficiency, and been able to say, hmmmm, that doesn't explain the anomaly, or that it does. Good luck with finding efficiency even close to the Carnot limit, let alone above. I'm not rooting for Carnot anymore than you, but if I were forced to bet...

Fool wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 6:50 am [...

Tom Booth wrote:So far it seems I'm the only person in history to perform these experiments and I've gotten consistent results.

If all avenues for alternative heat transfer are eliminated in a Stirling engine, zero heat is transfered through the working fluid. No heat whatsoever arrives at the cold side.

No temperature rise has been detected, mostly. At least one had a temperature rise. You posted it as a temperature drop until you corrected yourself after identifying the reversed thermal couples. I can't disregard that temperature rise. More is going on, than zero heat coming out.
...

In that particular case I was using an engine that had not had the stock steel bolts replaced.

As can be seen:
I stand by my statement. "If all avenues for alternative heat transfer are eliminated".

Fool wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 6:50 am

Tom Booth wrote:At this point if I or someone else were to find heat transferring through the working fluid of a Stirling engine consistent with what was predicted through the Carnot limit equation calculations, THAT would be the anomaly.

I understand why you are interested in this direction of investigation, but I recommend treading lightly. The Carnot Theorem says nothing about how much a cold plate will heat up if insulated. It is more accurately a description of how much heat getting into the gas is converted to work. Where the nonconverted heat goes, isn't part of the formula......

The so-called "formula" to begin with is nothing but a measure of two temperatures, a hot and a cold "reservoir". To suggest these factors completely external to an engine have anything whatsoever to do with the engines "efficiency" is the "extraordinary claim". Completely illogical, unsupportable and contrary to observable facts and experimental outcomes

It is at best a measure of the "available" energy, not a measure of how efficiently that energy might be utilized.

Furthermore, where the heat goes is certainly relevant.

If it doesn't go to the cold plate or cold heat exchanger then it is irrelevant where else it .might go, for the purposes of these experiments. i e. How long could a Stirling engine run on ice or a "cold hole".

What is relevant is how much heat gets into and would require removal from an artificially maintained "sink" or refrigerated space

If the answer is none, that in itself is highly significant. If a Stirling engine could be supplied with heat via a heat pump to produce the ∆T heating and cooling. The cooling might only be required at the start to initiate operation and after that only intermittently.

To again quote Tesla's proposal:

We would thus produce, by expending initially a certain amount of work to create a sink for the heat... to flow in, a condition enabling us to get any amount of energy without further effort. This would be an ideal way of obtaining motive power.

If you don't understand the significance of that, than you really are a "fool".

"a condition enabling us to get any amount of energy without further effort".

Tesla is clearly talking free energy. The fact that we are not powering our homes and cars with Tesla cycle engines is fairly clear evidence that he never succeeded in his wishes. The condition of not succeeding is the same as having zero proof and can be chalked up as nothing more than wishful thinking.

The Carnot formula has nothing to do with engine efficiency. It it is a maximum ratio of work out divided by heat in for an ideal thermodynamic cycle. It has been discovered, mathematically, several different ways, to be the same as the maximum working temperature ratio. It is modeled after several ideal full cycles (Carnot, Ericsson, and Stirling).

Engine efficiency will be worse. The real cycle of a real engine will not be ideal. In addition and beyond cycle efficiency, friction, windage, and pumping losses, and more, will also cut into that efficiency.

Extraordinary evidence is needed from any engineer claiming to have beat those natural constraints. Those constraints have 200 years of extraordinary evidence and calculations all attempting to break them and have failed.

Your experiment is an anomaly in temperature only, not in heat, work, or cycle analysis. Not yet, pending measurements and calculations of those factors.