Stirlingengineforum.com

Fool, you clearly don´t understand what Tesla means, when he uses the term " free energy".

That´s because you haven´t even read his little book about it. But here is a "free" link to it :
https://teslasciencecenter.org/wp-conte ... gazine.pdf
By using the word free energy, he means you don`t have to pay for it. It´s all ready there, all around us in the ambient medium :

The air, heated by the sun.

This was one of his golds, quote:

" I resolved to proceed with the development of such an engine, the primary object of which was to secure
the greatest economy of transformation of heat into mechanical energy"

"In the process, as I had primarily conceived it, for the utilization of the energy of the ambient medium, there were five
essential elements in combination"

"Shortly afterward
Dr. Carl Linde announced the liquefaction of air by a self-cooling process, demonstrating that it was practicable to proceed with
the cooling until liquefaction of the air took place. This was the only experimental proof which I was still wanting that energy was
obtainable from the medium in the manner contemplated by me"

So Tesla wanted to convert the heat in the air to mechanical energy. The heat/energy comes from the sun.

Is it then wrong to call that energy free ?

But regarding this he ends up with this conclusion, I have all ways wondered why :

" One of these reasons was that I had ample time to consider what the ultimate possibilities of this development might be.
I worked for a long time fully convinced that the practical realization of this method of obtaining
energy from the sun would be of incalculable industrial value, but the continued study of the subject revealed the fact
that while it will be commercially profitable if my expectations are well founded, it will
not be so to an extraordinary degree"



Read this book, and you will be amazed by his visions, realized so long ago . . .

BR

Fool wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 6:18 am The Carnot formula has nothing to do with engine efficiency. It it is a maximum ratio of work out divided by heat in ...

This is simply a direct contradiction:

"The Carnot" (edit: Carnot efficiency limit formula) "formula has nothing to do with engine efficiency. It it is a maximum ratio of work out divided by heat in.

It (the Carnot efficiency limit formula) says the first law as represented by ΔU = Q − W is somehow, in some way limited so that in practical terms W can only ever be about 20% of Q.

The "ratio of work out divided by heat in" is the definition of efficiency for a heat engine.

As far as Tesla's work;

Supposedly failing to accomplish a particular goal or ambition at any one period in time by any one individual says little or nothing in regard to whether or not such a thing is actually possible.

There is debate as to whether Tesla ever succeeded or not. I can also see reasons why he may have been thrown off track by assuming the Carnot/Kelvin/caloric model PARTIALLY correct, as I've touched on several times before

Tesla took for granted that heat AUTOMATICALLY "flows" from hot to cold, "compelled" to do so by the nature of things. Therefore, he reasoned, all he would need to do to produce endless "free energy" would be to set up a "cold hole" and then sit back and let the heat "flow in".

He also likely assumed heat engines derived their power from this "flow". From my reading he clearly stated as much.

In other words, Tesla's pursuit was still hampered by a number of false assumptions prevalent at the time regarding the nature of heat and how a heat engine actually obtains power or converts energy.

He was also limited by the available materials. Strong .materials for building engines at that time were all heat conducting metals, less than ideal for controlling and directing the "flow" of heat.

I'm not making any assumption as to weather or not Tesla ultimately succeeded or not or if his work was suppressed.

John Gorrie invented a virtually "perpetual" ice making machine, according to his own account as reflected in his patent, about 50 years earlier, and there is no question whatsoever that his invention was suppressed. It is a matter of recorded history.

I'm no "conspiracy theorist", but I'm just taking an objective, methodical approach.

For all I know the "conspiracy theorists" could be right. I don't rule out the possibility that inventions can sometimes be suppressed. It's a moot point if Tesla's idea could not work in principle, or if it failed for other reasons, so let's begin there.

Could Tesla's idea work IN PRINCIPLE?

That would depend upon the nature of heat.

Is heat A) "Caloric" a fluid-like SUBSTANCE that flows through a heat engine or is heat B) ENERGY that is converted by a heat engine.

If A, we should see the heat "flowing through" and coming out the other side.

This is only common logic

If B. We will find that the heat does not flow through. ΔU = Q − W conservation of energy, with or without qualification (The Carnot Limit).

So far my experiments seem to demonstrate that heat is indeed ENERGY that is actually converted by a heat engine and does not "flow through" and emerge from the other side.

In short, it seems Tesla was right, Carnot and Kelvin were wrong.

Further, tests, measurements, experiments, observations, historical research seem to indicate that the so-called Carnot Limit as it is being interpreted today is bogus, silly, nonsensical BS completely unsupported by any empirical evidence whatsoever, least of all my own experiments which show much much less (if any) heat FLOW THROUGH than predicted by the Carnot limit equation, as measured by the temperatures at the input and presumed heat exit from Stirling engines.

Now you are speculating that perhaps the heat is leaving the engine by some previously unsuspected and unknown circuitous path so need not leave the engine through the "cold side".

You are certainly free to concoct whatever nonsense, and further nonsense you care to dream up.

I can only go by the actual experimental results I've obtained so far. Your wild speculations about there being some mysterious alternative exiting location for the "heat" is, IMO just a symptom of your preconceptions and prejudices, not any kind of rational or objective observation or analysis.

You've been advocating for some "modified" version of the obsolete Caloric theory ever since you appeared here as "fool" if not prior to that using some other name.

viewtopic.php?p=19802#p19802

You don't even put forward any kind of theory or speculation about where you think the heat might be going.

To me, it is quite obvious. The heat is being converted. Not coming out anywhere, other than as "work" or mechanical motion of the engine itself, as is generally already recognized.

Goofy,

I have read that PDF on Tesla's article. Tesla died just as the second law of thermodynamics was being solidified, and before it was commonly taught. I do not fault him of schemes that are second law violations.

It doesn't boil down to the definition of "free energy". It boils down to the processes being envisioned or even built. Tesla's "cold hole" theory has been physically tried, resulting in failures. It isn't anything new. I for one, would love for it to work.

Ambient thermal energy level is at the bottom of the hill. Creating a lower level requires more work input. Even Tesla admits that. The second law has been discovered because it requires work energy to maintain that cold hole. Tesla may not have realized this because he was among the first experimenters running up against it. Unfortunately his experiments seem to have ended in failure, otherwise we would have them running for everyone today. Those failures have lead us to the development of the second law.

In other words, we have the second law to describe why Tesla's, and other's, experiments didn't work. Don't take my word for it, study, learn, build, learn, experiment, and learn. Find out if nature really abhors a second law violation, and why.

Tom Booth wrote:"The Carnot" (edit: Carnot efficiency limit formula) "formula has nothing to do with engine efficiency. It it is a maximum ratio of work out divided by heat in.

Yes it is when you chop off the end of the sentence. The full sentences are below:

"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. "

The Carnot theorem was developed for the Carnot cycle. No one has built any engine better. No one has come up with a more efficient cycle or real engine. Please try. But don't come telling me you can or have succeeded with only temperature data. Have real measured, work output and heat input.

Quote Fool :
"Tesla died just as the second law of thermodynamics was being solidified"

He died in 1943, so ? ? ?

"It doesn't boil down to the definition of "free energy"

So what is your definition of free energy ?

" Tesla's "cold hole" theory has been physically tried, resulting in failures."

Then give me some examples ?

"The second law has been discovered because it requires work energy to maintain that cold hole. Tesla may not have realized this"

Ahhh, so you think he had just "over-looked" such an obvious thing ?

"The Carnot theorem was developed for the Carnot cycle. No one has built any engine better"

Yes, it´s a theorem, and it was never built, and can´t be. That´s why you can´t built any thing better, than something
that doesn't exist.

"No one has built any engine better"

Than what ?
LOL !

And please, in your endless mention of second law & Carnot, ad the prefix : "In a closed system" . . .

BR

Fool wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 11:29 am ....
Tesla's "cold hole" theory has been physically tried, resulting in failures.

Really? By whom? When? Using what experimental or other set up?

You and others often make this baseless claim but never seem to be able to produce any actual evidence of any specific test or "failure". Just empty rhetoric.

...Tesla may not have realized this because he was among the first experimenters running up against it. Unfortunately his experiments seem to have ended in failure, otherwise we would have them running for everyone today. Those failures have lead us to the development of the second law.

Tesla's claim was:

I was just beginning work on the third element, which together with the first two would give a refrigerating machine of exceptional efficiency and simplicity, when a misfortune befell me in the burning of my laboratory, which crippled my labors and delayed me

At the time there were opponents of Tesla's who celebrated the burning down of his workshop.

In other words, we have the second law to describe why Tesla's, and other's, experiments didn't work.

What others? How about some actual facts? Who even understood what on earth Tesla was even talking about with his "cold hole" heat engine? No less ever tried to build such a thing.

Don't take my word for it, ...

Well, what evidence do you have to offer other than your opinion?

Tom Booth wrote:"The Carnot" (edit: Carnot efficiency limit formula) "formula has nothing to do with engine efficiency. It it is a maximum ratio of work out divided by heat in.

Yes it is when you chop off the end of the sentence. The full sentences are below:

"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. "

The Carnot theorem was developed for the Carnot cycle.

So what? Effectively the same statement. "Ideal" or not, it's a hard limit (supposedly).

No one has built any engine better.

Again. Baseless opinion.

Anything. Any engine ever built is "better" than a theoretical engine that could never even operate, even if it were built to Carnot's specifications.

It Was/is a Caloric engine that works (theoretically) by "letting down" ALL the heat. If, as Carnot imagined, ALL the heat passes through, what does that leave to be converted to work?

No one has come up with a more efficient cycle or real engine.

Any engine that runs is more efficient. Any engine that converts ANY heat into work is better and more efficient than an engine that converts ZERO heat to work but simply "transports" heat between a hot and a cold "reservoir".

Please try. But don't come telling me you can or have succeeded with only temperature data. Have real measured, work output and heat input.

Why don't you mind your own business and/or do your own experiments.

If you are so enamored with Carnot and caloric theory, how about you build a working replica of a Carnot engine.

You can carry the cylinder over to a hot plate and watch the air expand, then carry it over to some ice and watch the air contract.

Not "impossible", just a completely useless transfer of "caloric" from one place to another. Perfect simple to construct and operate. It just doesn't actually work or do anything

Fool wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 11:29 am Unfortunately his experiments seem to have ended in failure, otherwise we would have them running for everyone today.

I can't bring much knowledge into this discussion, but you mention this point twice and I felt the need to say something about that.

This is a bit of an innocent view of the world.
Having worked at Asml euv, Samsung R&D, and Pfizer I can assure you technology is suppressed left, right and centre. Companies with vested interests have a big inventive to keep the status quo going. One of my projects in Korea was a victim of this. A clear step ahead in technology and Samsung bought it and stalled it. Never to be seen again.

And this was only about led screens, imagine any bigger markets, like engines, and the forces at play there.
Tesla even mentioned this himself in many of his writings.

So no, absolutely not. In no way would a breakthrough mean that years later we all know and use it. It's just not that kind of world.

Tom Booth wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 8:40 am

Fool wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 6:18 am The Carnot formula has nothing to do with engine efficiency. It it is a maximum ratio of work out divided by heat in ...

This is simply a direct contradiction:

"The Carnot" (edit: Carnot efficiency limit formula) "formula has nothing to do with engine efficiency. It it is a maximum ratio of work out divided by heat in.

Tom - you must be a Darwin Award collector. Fool has this correct...a Stirling or Otto cycle within the same thermal range has the same Carnot limit when "calculated" (Jeez) via the common 'short' method, but the Otto will have a lower Carnot limit (than Stirling) when calculated via the 'long' method. The Carnot limit for common adiabatic cycles (4 process Otto or Brayton) is locked in by the thermal ratio of their adiabatic process. So, Otto and Brayton actually have a (much) lower Carnot limit (thus lower eff) than Stirling and Ericsson within the same thermal cycle range. The common short method holds true only as a GENERAL maximum.

Tom Booth wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 8:40 am Supposedly failing to accomplish a particular goal or ambition at any one period in time by any one individual says little or nothing in regard to whether or not such a thing is actually possible.

WTF ??? here's a graphic from another post I'm working on. If you can't reach this minimal proof before preceding, then you're wasting your time.

Tom Booth wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 8:40 am Further, tests, measurements, experiments, observations, historical research seem to indicate that the so-called Carnot Limit as it is being interpreted today is bogus, silly, nonsensical BS completely unsupported by any empirical evidence whatsoever, least of all my own experiments which show much much less (if any) heat FLOW THROUGH than predicted by the Carnot limit equation, as measured by the temperatures at the input and presumed heat exit from Stirling engines.

Now you are speculating that perhaps the heat is leaving the engine by some previously unsuspected and unknown circuitous path so need not leave the engine through the "cold side".

Since you have access to a combined gas calculator, why don't you show us your theory similar my graphic above...

matt brown wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 6:32 pm

Tom Booth wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 8:40 am

Fool wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 6:18 am The Carnot formula has nothing to do with engine efficiency. It it is a maximum ratio of work out divided by heat in ...

This is simply a direct contradiction:

"The Carnot" (edit: Carnot efficiency limit formula) "formula has nothing to do with engine efficiency. It it is a maximum ratio of work out divided by heat in.

Tom - you must be a Darwin Award collector. Fool has this correct...a Stirling or Otto cycle within the same thermal range has the same Carnot limit when "calculated" (Jeez) via the common 'short' method, but the Otto will have a lower Carnot limit (than Stirling) when calculated via the 'long' method. The Carnot limit for common adiabatic cycles (4 process Otto or Brayton) is locked in by the thermal ratio of their adiabatic process. So, Otto and Brayton actually have a (much) lower Carnot limit (thus lower eff) than Stirling and Ericsson within the same thermal cycle range. The common short method holds true only as a GENERAL maximum.

Tom Booth wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 8:40 am Supposedly failing to accomplish a particular goal or ambition at any one period in time by any one individual says little or nothing in regard to whether or not such a thing is actually possible.

300-600k Essex.png (13.05 KiB) Viewed 4611 times

WTF ??? here's a graphic from another post I'm working on. If you can't reach this minimal proof before preceding, then you're wasting your time.

Tom Booth wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 8:40 am Further, tests, measurements, experiments, observations, historical research seem to indicate that the so-called Carnot Limit as it is being interpreted today is bogus, silly, nonsensical BS completely unsupported by any empirical evidence whatsoever, least of all my own experiments which show much much less (if any) heat FLOW THROUGH than predicted by the Carnot limit equation, as measured by the temperatures at the input and presumed heat exit from Stirling engines.

Now you are speculating that perhaps the heat is leaving the engine by some previously unsuspected and unknown circuitous path so need not leave the engine through the "cold side".

Since you have access to a combined gas calculator, why don't you show us your theory similar my graphic above...

Who knows what your talking about with your "long" and "short" method?

I sure don't.

There is only one "Carnot Limit" formula I'm aware of, based on the ∆T. Period.

Your cartoon engine cycles don't .prove anything or interest me much either. I wouldn't waste time trying to decipher your mumbo jumbo.

Please provide some kind of reference to some such "short" and/or "long" Carnot Limit methods, if you can. You seem to be just making shit up

Jack wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 4:59 pm ... technology is suppressed left, right and centre. Companies with vested interests have a big incentive to keep the status quo going. ...

You can add to that governments and educational systems, and whom or whatever "fool" and "Matt" are actually working with or for to help ruin this forum.

Tom Booth wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 9:00 pm
Please provide some kind of reference to some such "short" and/or "long" Carnot Limit methods, if you can. You seem to be just making shit up

Almost unbelievable that after (at least) 15 yrs of bashing Carnot, you're soooo clueless...

wiki shows the common 'short' Carnot limit under Carnot Theorem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot%27 ... odynamics)


but wiki shows another Carnot limit under Thermal efficiency

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency


note that equality sign means "equal to OR less than", not "equal to"


But this needs further clarification, and a short read is


Anti-bot box req'd (nixes direct link). Here's the long Carnot limit for Otto and Brayton


And that "y" character is lower case Greek gamma, so it stands for gamma function (Cp/Cv heat ratio)


This paper has some simple graphics that spell it out for lazy guys, like this one


Fool and I learned this "shit" so many years ago that we've forgotten when.

Congrats, you earned another Darwin Award

All your references show the same formula to calculate the same ratio based on the ∆T.

One formula produces one side of the ratio, representing the maximum work output, the other produces the other side of the ratio; the minimum heat to be "rejected". Together they add up to 100% which is the total heat input.

Th-Tc/Th gives the maximum work (supposedly).

Tc/Th gives the (supposed) minimum heat "rejected". So, to find max work you subtract the result from unity.

The other references are the same formula, just using different notation.

How does any of that prove that "Fool" is correct in saying that the Carnot efficiency limit formula has "nothing to do with engine efficiency"?

I actually agree. In REALITY, it has nothing to do with actual engine efficiency.

It is supposedly the upper limit of efficiency for any and all heat engines

If you think those are "long" and "short" or in any way actually different formulas you apparently don't understand ratios.

note that equality sign means "equal to OR less than", not "equal to"

Duh...

That's the mathematical representation of a "limit" as in "efficiency limit" less than or at most equal to. So what?

A "limit" on efficiency has "nothing to do with" efficiency?

Tom Booth wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2024 12:17 am
The other references are the same formula, just using different notation.

How does any of that prove that "Fool" is correct in saying that the Carnot efficiency limit formula has "nothing to do with engine efficiency"?

Carnot limit for Carnot, Stirling, and Ericsson are what you're familiar with where Carnot = (Thigh-Tlow)/Thigh

thus, 300-600k cycle has Carnot = .50 for these 3 cycles

Another way this can be expressed is Carnot = 1 - 1/Tr where Tr = thermal ratio of the CYCLE

Meanwhile, Carnot limit for Otto and Brayton is Carnot = 1/Tr where Tr = thermal ratio of the adiabatic PROCESS only

or as that short paper shows, Otto/Brayton max eff = 1 - 1/r^gamma-1 where the Tr of an adiabatic process is derived (gag) from compression ratio (r) to the power (^) of "gamma-1".

Again, gamma is the ratio of Cp/Cv heats and for diatomic air, gamma = 1.4 so "gamma-1" = .4

So, grab your desktop calculator and enter 6 as a compression ratio, then hit the exponent key, then enter .4, then hit equal key and you should see that 6^.4 = 2.0476 which is the rise in temperature for 6:1 compression when air. Now, if we round off 2.076 to simply 2, you should now grasp that an ideal 6:1 adiabatic air compression doubles temperature. Thus, a 300-600k Otto cycle with 6:1 compression is only a gas spring, since you've tapped out the cycle Thigh with just the adiabatic compression process.

A basic 300-750k Otto with 6:1 compression would have 300-600k compression range with 150k left for input, where the trade slang is 25% overhead (ICE won't even tickover on this low overhead). The point is that for Otto and Brayton, their thermal eff is locked in (via above eq.) by the thermal ratio of their adiabatic process, so this 6:1 example is locked into eff = .50 regardless whether 300-750k, 300-900k, 300-1200k, 300k-whatever cycle.

Meanwhile, Carnot/Stirling/Ericsson 300-750k = .60, 300-900k = .66, 300-1200k = .75

This is why Carnot is a limit, not a given.

Tom Booth wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 9:38 pm

Jack wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 4:59 pm ... technology is suppressed left, right and centre. Companies with vested interests have a big incentive to keep the status quo going. ...

You can add to that governments and educational systems, and whom or whatever "fool" and "Matt" are actually working with or for to help ruin this forum.

Perhaps you can show some evidence for this suppression by showing a working engine that exceeds the Carnot limit, or operates on the Tesla cold hole fantasy.

If there is a conspiracy, it is from science challenged people acting like self appointed authorities, believers, and deniers.

https://www.livescience.com/55944-perpe ... hines.html

Why do people continue to attempt perpetual motion machines when all laws of physics suggest they are impossible?

"My hunch is that they are motivated by their incomplete understanding of physics," Simanek told Live Science. "The perpetual motion machine inventors' view of physics is a collection of unrelated equations for specific purposes. They fail to grasp the greatest strength of physics — its logical unity.

"For example, the laws of thermodynamics do not arise by fiat. They are derivable from Newton's laws and the kinetic model of gases and have been well-tested experimentally … You can't simply discard one law you 'don't like' without bringing the whole logical structure of physics crashing down."

Simanek noted that most perpetual motion machine inventors do not believe their machines violate the laws of physics. "Some suppose that certain specific laws do not apply, usually conservation of energy and the laws of thermodynamics."

"Some suppose that certain specific laws do not apply, "

Tom has chosen to discard the second law, instead becoming a denier of science. He has fallen victim to this fallacy because he has appointed himself the only person to know the experiment evidence of his temperatures. He fails to comprehend the significance of measuring the input energy, and output energy, before any conclusion can be made.

Choosing to deny science and failure to do needed measurements puts him in the league of obfuscation.

He is fooling himself.

You two ask for evidence, and then deny it when given.

All the engines out there comply with the Carnot limit. Every engine in the book by Ivo Kolin conforms. Supported by mathematical analysis, data and charts. Plus, that book leads a reader through how engines were developed. It points out better than anything what a heat engine is.

It starts with the misdirection of vacuum engine power, and leads right on through the pressurized and regenerated Stirling Brother's engines.

Vacuum engines are still being tinkered with even though Watt provided a much more powerful alternative. Learning why that is, is so very important. 1000 psi is way more motive than 7 psi. 1000 K to 300 K is way more motive than 300 K to 250 K.

Matt, thanks. They won't learn anything as long as their denial, cognitive dissonance, compels them to be ignorant of scientific diagrams to the point of calling them cartoons. LOL perhaps one day people like that will learn that name calling and denial prove nothing but their own lack of knowledge.

Perhaps one day I will learn to be turned off by such insolence. For some reason it bounces right off me by the fact that disrespect begets correction. So does misdirection, misleading, falsehoods, denial, dissonance, etc...

Tom is mad because he denies the fact that we know something that he doesn't want to be true. So he denies it some more. It is the vicious circle of cognitive dissonance. You and I are patient because we care about reality, and have fought our own cognitive dissonance. I be happy to be shown my errors, if it can be done properly. Logical fallacies are improperly.

matt brown wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2024 2:21 am ...
This is why Carnot is a limit, not a given.

Everybody already knows the Carnot efficiency LIMIT is a limit.

So what?

You still haven't answered the question.

How does an efficiency limit have "nothing to do with" efficiency?

It's in the name: Carnot efficiency limit.

You see, everywhere you look, nearly every reference on the subject has this in the title or the text:
All I see here is one "fool" who put his foot in his mouth being backed up by another both trying to cover for each other by posting walls of text.

How is this even debatable?

Yes, the so-called "Carnot Limit" is a limit not "a given".

Yes, Carnot efficiency is a limit on efficiency not the actual efficiency, which supposedly will always be less than the "limit".

The both of you ruin this forum filling it with this kind of idiotic nonsensical argument and will double down and triple down in typical "sock puppet" form, Its hard to believe "Matt Brown" and "fool" aren't actually one and the same person since it seems virtually impossible there could actually be two people on planet earth so consistently idiotic.

It's unfortunate because for the past decade, IMO, this was the best forum on the internet. A haven, a getaway, a retreat, where people could relax in peace to talk about their model engine building.

Fool,
just to keep my self updated, can you please answer this simple question, that you just seem to ignore :

(I quote my self again)
"So Tesla wanted to convert the heat in the air to mechanical energy. The heat/energy comes from the sun.

Is it then wrong to call that energy free ?"

And :

"It doesn't boil down to the definition of "free energy"

So what is your definition of free energy ?"

These questions doesn´t demand any mathematical explanation, just you pointing out what you mean.

Or do you just confuse your own opinion with facts ?

BR