Stirlingengineforum.com

The question I have for Tom is, 'Why does the gas even need to get cold? Constant temperature Th expansion yields higher work output.'

Answer, because if it really worked that way, and it doesn't, the second law would have never been created. Observation of the second law, as you've asked for repetitively.

Fool wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 7:57 am

sarimshaikh wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 1:09 am??????

LOL. Yes he's pretty much gone off the deep end with his cognitive dissonance. Welcome to our forum. I hope you have a cast iron gut so as you can stomach the tripe he serves.

Oh, wonderful

Fool the bot has found a spam bot friend to talk to. LOL

Fool wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 8:05 am The question I have for Tom is, 'Why does the gas even need to get cold? Constant temperature Th expansion yields higher work output.'

Answer, because if it really worked that way, and it doesn't, the second law would have never been created. Observation of the second law, as you've asked for repetitively.

The "observations" that led to the creation of the second law did not happen.

At the time of writing his book, Carnot never even saw a Steam engine. They had not yet reached France. He based his theories on second hand information and caloric theory

There was a complete lack of any real critical observation involved

So what? It has been observed many times afterwards. Heat engines won't run until they are given a temperature difference.

Leave one side at ambient, cool or heat the other side. Temperature difference, engine can start running with a shove. No temptation difference no running. Second law. Heat transfer.

Th to hot gas temperature Thg. Tcg cold gas temperature to Tc. All four of those must be different. And could be measured. Thermal couples inside and outside the hot and cold plates. The might have milli+Kelvin differences.

Carnot described an engine that needed a temperature difference. He even correctly explained why. To remove the heat of compression. Not real heat as defined now, adiabatic temperature rise during compression to reduce the return-stroke work-loss.

I am sorry that you can't and won't measure it.

Fool wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 12:41 pm Carnot described an engine that needed a temperature difference. He even correctly explained why. To remove the heat of compression. Not real heat as defined now, adiabatic temperature rise during compression to reduce the return-stroke work-loss.

I am sorry that you can't and won't measure it.

What Carnot wrote was:

Thus rarefied, the temperature will fall spontaneously...
....By our first operations there would have been at the same time production of motive power AND transfer of caloric from the body A to the body B

(Emphasis added)

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Reflec ... /Chapter_3

The failure here is in the recognition that "caloric" and "motive power" are, and MUST be interconvertible and inversely proportional.

He believed caloric could be transfered AND that simultaneously "motive power" would be produced, such as when water falls down to power a mill wheel and all the water continues on its way while also producing mechanical power output.

The recognition that heat (or caloric) is only a form of energy that is CONVERTED to work means that this is not true heat is not a fluid that flows down as a consequence of gravitational "pull".

Gas molecules in transferring energy loose energy. So you cannot have both heat "rejection" and simultaneous work output from the same quantity of input energy in equal proportion.

That is, 1 Joule going in as heat and 1 Joule going out work, AND ALSO 1 Joule going out as "waste heat" is impossible.

The two (waste heat and work output) are inversely proportional so that the more work output there is, the less waste heat there is and vice versa.

The same energy cannot leave the engine as BOTH "work" and "waste heat". That would be a violation of conservation of energy

Carnot was mistaken.

If you have all the input heat converted to work on expansion then there is no waste heat and what you are left with is a piston at Bottom dead center and the working fluid at 1/2 atmosphere or 1/2 pressure.

At that point atmospheric pressure will return the piston to top dead center to restore the balance.

This is not exactly correct because the momentum of the piston results in an overshot in both directions but is descriptive enough for theoretical purposes

Carnot thought the temperature drop on expansion was "spontaneous" rather than as a result of the conversion of thermal or "internal energy" of the working fluid into another form of energy: mechanical work output.

If the joules have gone out as "work" then that energy is no longer there to interfere with the subsequent compression. Infact, "compression" of the working fluid is inevitable in order to restore balance once the piston has changed position from TDC to BDC leaving the working fluid at lower pressure.

Tom Booth wrote:What Carnot wrote was:

Thus rarefied, the temperature will fall spontaneously...
....By our first operations there would have been at the same time production of motive power AND transfer of caloric from the body A to the body B

That is not all he wrote. And it has nothing to do with the description of his engine. Stop cherry picking.

Yes he was mistaken. Big Fat Hairy Tail Deal. Get a reality check. Quit bashing thermodynamics. You are clueless.

There is are two strokes, forward and reverse. Power comes out of, heat goes into, the gas during the forward stroke. Power goes in, heat comes out, during the reverse stroke. If the reverse stroke releases less heat and requires less work input, than the forward stroke, a positive net work output is obtainable, minus of course frictional losses. That is a combination of the first and second laws.

.

Fool wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2024 6:00 am

Tom Booth wrote:What Carnot wrote was:

Thus rarefied, the temperature will fall spontaneously...
....By our first operations there would have been at the same time production of motive power AND transfer of caloric from the body A to the body B

That is not all he wrote. And it has nothing to do with the description of his engine. Stop cherry picking.

Yes he was mistaken. Big Fat Hairy Tail Deal. Get a reality check. Quit bashing thermodynamics. You are clueless.

There is are two strokes, forward and reverse. Power comes out of, heat goes into, the gas during the forward stroke. Power goes in, heat comes out, during the reverse stroke. If the reverse stroke releases less heat and requires less work input, than the forward stroke, a positive net work output is obtainable, minus of course frictional losses. That is a combination of the first and second laws.

.

You can view the engine as a "black box".

Forward stroke, backwards stroke, compression, expansion, one, two, four cycle, one two, six, eight cylinders, alpha, beta, gamma, LTD, regenerator or no regenerator, displacer or no, free piston or crank, thermoacoustic, lamna flow, whatever is all going on inside the "black box". The exact internal mechanism doesn't matter.

So there are two strokes.

Heat goes in, obviously, because the engine is running, there is still no measurable "waste heat" coming out of the "black box".

Your theories about what happens inside the box are irrelevant.

Tim Booth wrote:Heat goes in, obviously, because the engine is running, there is still no measurable "waste heat" coming out of the "black box".

And no measurable work either. So how much heat actually entered the engine.

Lack of being able to measure, is lousy evidence. Try again.

Fool wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 12:27 am

Tim Booth wrote:Heat goes in, obviously, because the engine is running, there is still no measurable "waste heat" coming out of the "black box".

And no measurable work either. So how much heat actually entered the engine.

Lack of being able to measure, is lousy evidence. Try again.

That's just a lie. Obviously.

Anyone who actually cares about such irrelevant details could approximate the work, but exact numbers are irrelevant.

Anyone with eyes to look can see the engine is running which is clear unequivocal proof that the working gas is doing work to run the engine, for anyone who has eyes and a brain.

More gaslighting, from fool the chat bot who has neither.

From your Wiki entry, first paragraph:

"...defined as manipulating someone into questioning their own perception of reality"

Again as goofy quoted from Tesla:

viewtopic.php?p=21653#p21653

“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. ”

You're effectively gaslighting yourself.

Admittedly, sometimes human senses can be misleading or unreliable, but in this case there is no ambiguity. A running heat engine is a running heat engine. Quite plain to see.

Goofy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 2:43 pm Tom, I really admire your patience with this "Fool".

But like Don Quixote, it is . . . .

In my (practical) world, efficiency is the relation between what you put in, versus what you get out.

Please, read again : What YOU put in !

So if the input is 1 Kelvin, where does "the rest" of the heat comes from, Fool ?

Perhaps the only practical thing you do, is to draw your chair out before sitting down in front of your desk ?

Allow me to quote Nikola Tesla :

“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. ”

BR
Petter

I'm not trying to make myself crazy. That is not any goal of mine. You are ignorant of how to use the term. You must prove the truth with data you refuse to believe is easily available. You are fooling yourselves. Since you can't be subordinate to yourself, it is not gaslighting. It is regular old fashioned fooling yourself by ignorance. Your choice. Goofy too.

Believing Tesla is correct is just your opinions. So what now? Are your going to start an opinion war about opinions?

Gas lighting is about liying by someone in control to make someone subordinate think they are loosing their minds. I'm sticking with what I know and the science and standard definitions. My addictions to these discussions are nothing but what you can calculate for yourself, or look up.

Wikipedia wrote:Over time, the listening partner may exhibit symptoms often associated with anxiety disorders, depression, or low self-esteem. Gaslighting is distinct from genuine relationship conflict in that one party manipulates the perceptions of the other.

Are you having doubts about yourself, depression, anxiety, or are you set in your viewpoint? If so it's not gas lighting. Is anyone cursing at you, calling you names, referring you to medical doctors? If not it's not gas lighting.

Are you using curse words as defense? Yes. Grow up. Attack the mathematics, with mathematics, not opinion.

Tesla failed. So did Linus Pauling. Does that make either wrong about all they did? No. Just wrong about their success in producing free energy from a cold hole, and long life from overdoses of Vitamin C, respectively. Start bashing Classical Thermodynamics after you have obtained easy to get proper experimental Data. My prediction is you will fail. But I'd like to see the results. Especially if you succeed.

W/Qin <<< notice there is no Qc in the equation? Your Qc measurements and predictions are surrounded by the same theory you are bashing. You are stepping on your own tongue. Funny. Yes. Helpful? No.

From top dead center to bottom dead center, the little LTD engines maximum adiabatic with work temperature drop is less than a degree C. Calculate it yourself. Let me know how you are measuring less than a degree C? PV=nRT, temperature drop is directly related to expansion ratio. Think about how small that expansion ratio really is? Probably less than 1.1 .

Mr Goofy said, "So if the input is 1 Kelvin, where does "the rest" of the heat comes from, Fool ?"

Temperature is not what can be put in or gotten out. Energy is what is put in, and the output desired is Work. So, Work output W divided by energy in Qin, is what needs to be measured to determine efficiency. Measuring temperature isn't wrong, if used in the equations correctly and they come from the correct places and enough to use those equations. Otherwise Qin and W can't be determined.

Measure W/Qin please.

P.S., Quantum and Relativity Theories have been hugely successful and have led to many empirical discoveries that may have taken many years to have learned blundering along in the dark with random theory-less experiments. Tesla was obviously wrong to deny theory. Modern science needs more than empiricism to make knowledge reliable. Scientist have a lot to learn and so do us three. I only strive to use the mathematics correctly, against you two's opposition. Perhaps I fool myself thinking you two have any chance of learning this. It's because of your choices. Oh well, it's just regular old fashioned foolishness. Good luck to the both of you.

.

Fool wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 9:37 am ...

I'm not trying to make myself crazy. That is not any goal of mine.

You don't have to try. Your obviously already long gone.

Yay!