Stirlingengineforum.com

You are apparently ignorant of the history of the oil company and energy monopolies in general.

The big one in Tesla's and Carnot's day was Standard Oil, and they were quite actively suppressing alternative technologies.

They sold a lot of kerosene for example for lamp oil and tried to suppress electric lighting generally, both Edison and Tesla.

Standard Oil though broken up as a monopoly is the predecessor of nearly every Oil company still in existence.

Today, the influence of energy companies over politics, education and science generally is staggering.

I personally have nothing whatsoever against Oil. I'm not "climate change" alarmist or advocate. But the facts are the facts.

Many top universities have offices for Oil company representatives on campas and are largely dependent on Oil company financial support. Universities that do the Energy monopolies bidding receive the big donations. Hell, they even are allowed to review scientific papers before publication and teach in classrooms and design educational programs that depict Oil and oil companies in a favorable light.

But you know nothing about it.

Hell, these energy monopolies would, and have carpet bombed entirely countries over Petro dollars, you think they are above telling a few white lies in classrooms? They write the textbooks.

Standard oil existed for 1870 - 1911. Long after Carnot.

Lord Kelvin 1824-1907. Probably saw some suppression but after the second law was made.

Rudolf Clausius 1822-1888 probably didn't see any suppression.

The following link is very informative about how thermodynamics came to be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... modynamics

Promoting kerosene lighting didn't have any influence on creation of the first or second laws.

They are currently behind suppression of global warming, now called climate change.

Fool wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 9:46 am Standard oil existed for 1870 - 1911. Long after Carnot.

Oh, excuse me. The Carnot revivalists. Kelvin and whomever.

Lord Kelvin 1824-1907. Probably saw some suppression but after the second law was made.

Rudolf Clausius 1822-1888 probably didn't see any suppression.

The following link is very informative about how thermodynamics came to be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... modynamics

Promoting kerosene lighting didn't have any influence on creation of the first or second laws.

They are currently behind suppression of global warming, now called climate change.

IMO Kelvin obviously knew the Carnot/caloric theory was entirely obsolete, but as recorded in his own writings chose to forward and promote it as "entirely correct". I can only guess his motives.

I'm talking primarily about the current perpetuation of this "Carnot Limit" in modern academia. It is constantly brought up in any discussion involving alternative energy systems, methods, principles or potential inventions.

This baseless, unscientific Carnot nonsense is constantly used to bash "free energy" or alternative energy or even just curious or imaginative people in general over the head with fanatical screams of "impossible!!!"

Screaming on forums, as you do: No! Carnot limit forbids it!

viewtopic.php?p=24241#p24241

Your long boring diatribes about the Carnot limit and the second law are at best tiring, but in general discouraging and destructive.

It is not only generally "unfalsifiable" but where it is possible to test at least some of its propositions or conclusions, such as the minimum "waste heat" that can be expected from any real engine it falls completely flat.

It does not stand up to testing, where it is possible to test at all.

You can argue all you want that your obsolete mathematics is somehow superior "proof" above and beyond actual experimental evidence but I don't buy it, and I don't think any honest person with any common sense really does either.

Anyway, I personally, and honestly feel and believe, rightly or wrongly, that I have objectively and impartially tested through my experimental approach, the "Carnot limit" hypothesis that says only a small fraction of heat can be transformed (at practical working temperatures) vs. the Tesla hypothesis that all the heat can be transformed so that none of it arrives at the "sink".

My conclusion is that the experimental evidence is OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of Tesla's viewpoint and have had NO results whatsoever that tend to favor the "Carnot limit" view. None at all.

And so, I'm moving on. Theorizing and testing is over, as far as I'm concerned, and I'm moving forward into design and application.

You can continue promoting the Carnot limit all you like, I don't care, but as I've said many times before, just leave me out of it. If you keep bringing up my name and my research and experiments or videos or opinions and theories you can be sure I'll have something to say about it

Tom Booth wrote:You can argue all you want that your obsolete mathematics is somehow superior "proof" above and beyond actual experimental evidence but I don't buy it, and I don't think any honest person with any common sense really does either.

Again you are using mathematics incorrectly. There is no proof in science. There is data. If the data fits the equations, the equations become useful.

Incorrect mathematics is proven wrong by correct mathematics. I was correcting your erroneous mathematics. You are the one that said your data is irrelevant. Then you put forth erroneous calculations. There is no scientific proof of the ideal and perfect mathematical circle, but the equations have been supported by science, and proven mathematically.

So has Carnot. Looking for energy being greater than the predicted Carnot Work output. Measure the work output.

So far only data that is supportive of Carnot has been found. You have not measured work output. You only unrealistically claim it.

Fool wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 12:43 pm

Tom Booth wrote:You can argue all you want that your obsolete mathematics is somehow superior "proof" above and beyond actual experimental evidence but I don't buy it, and I don't think any honest person with any common sense really does either.

Again you are using mathematics incorrectly. There is no proof in science. There is data. If the data fits the equations, the equations become useful.

Incorrect mathematics is proven wrong by correct mathematics. I was correcting your erroneous mathematics. You are the one that said your data is irrelevant. Then you put forth erroneous calculations. There is no scientific proof of the ideal and perfect mathematical circle, but the equations have been supported by science, and proven mathematically.

So has Carnot. Looking for energy being greater than the predicted Carnot Work output. Measure the work output.

So far only data that is supportive of Carnot has been found. You have not measured work output. You only unrealistically claim it.

The "Carnot Limit" claims that no real engine efficiency can exceed the Carnot engine efficiency

Such a comparison is experimentally impossible and "unfalsifiable" and therefore without scientific foundation, aside from all the other evidence against it

No sound theoretical basis. It was concocted entirely on the foundation of caloric theory which is obsolete and disproven

A simplistic equation that can hardly be interpreted to be an actual "formula". It is simply the temperature difference. If the temperature difference is 20% of T hot then the "efficiency" is supposedly limited to 20%

On what basis?

Nothing at all, other than Carnot's Caloric water wheel "analogy" which he took as 100% literal. Heat he imagined, "falls down" like a waterfall.

Hey, it's a theory. Easy enough for any 2 year old to understand, but that doesn't make it "science" and it doesn't make it true and has no bearing on mechanics or engineering.

Complete garbage as far as I'm concerned

And incorrect math is not proven wrong by correct math, it is proven wrong by experiment.

Experiment is the ultimate trying ground in science. If you think otherwise then you don't know or understand science at all

Fool wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 12:43 pm

Tom Booth wrote:You can argue all you want that your obsolete mathematics is somehow superior "proof" above and beyond actual experimental evidence but I don't buy it, and I don't think any honest person with any common sense really does either.

Again you are using mathematics incorrectly....

No I'm not

I've provided references for my approach.

Whatever heat entering the engine is not converted to "work" must be "rejected" as "waste heat".

The simple and experimentally well established first law of thermodynamics; "conservation of energy".

Just for example: a random reference:

How is the efficiency of a Carnot engine related to its waste heat? The efficiency of a Carnot engine is closely related to its waste heat, as the efficiency is defined as the ratio of the work output to the heat input. The higher the waste heat, the lower the efficiency, and vice versa. This is due to the fact that the waste heat is a loss of energy that cannot be converted into work.

Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/c ... e.1001317/

You are ignoring the PV work being done directly to the atmosphere by the piston.

Measure the work output. You will see.

There is nothing in the second law that states that the work out can't be zero.

Fool wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 2:00 pm You are ignoring the PV work being done directly to the atmosphere by the piston.

No I'm not.

Work, PV work or otherwise is still work output performed by the working fluid.

Think of the engine as a "black box".

Heat goes in

Work and/or "waste heat" comes out. There are no other alternatives.

What goes on inside the box or "system boundary" is irrelevant to the equation.

Whatever doesn't come out as "waste heat" is, by definition, "work" in one form or another.

Friction, vibration, sound, pushing atmosphere around, etc are all secondary consequences of the engines motion which motion is the result of work carried out by the working fluid and no longer "heat".

Anything leaving the "box" that is not "waste heat" is "work".

Especially when considering Tesla's so-called "cold hole". The only form of output that can "fill the cold hole" is "waste heat".

Any other form the energy might take is not going to have an influence on the "cold hole".

Tesla's proposal does not depend upon "useful work" or "efficiency". It only depends upon SOME of the heat being converted to some other form of energy, not necessarily all "useful".

As previously explained, whatever heat might need to be "pumped out" of the cold hole can be recycled back into the engine so it is effectively removed from the cold hole "by its own energy".

Whatever heat is converted "is clear gain".

Measure the work output. You will see.

See what?

There is nothing in the second law that states that the work out can't be zero.

If the engine is running, the work done by the working fluid cannot be zero.

Certainly Tesla's proposal would be more "useful" if the engine is very efficient but a very high efficiency is not an absolute necessity.

The efficiency as far as "useful" work output could be zero. You would still have a potential "Self-acting engine", if only a curiosity for entertainment, like the "drinking Bird".

You are ignoring the PV work being done directly to the atmosphere by the piston.

The pressure of the atmosphere does not change so the area of this curve would be zero, but the work is not zero.

This should be a good example of how a PV chart does not tell the whole story.

More effectively, we likely could use PLAN/33,000 or some derivative to calculate the work in horse power done against the atmosphere, and subtract some percentage of that from the PV work done on the piston by the internal gas.

Tom Booth wrote:Work, PV work or otherwise is still work output performed by the working fluid.

Yes but per Carnot it is not part of the work output. It is part of the energy rejected to the atmosphere/heat sink. It just doesn't come out through the cold plate. Hence it is energy rejected per Carnot, but not through the cold plate. Hence why you witnessed the cold plate being cold. It is work output reduction per Carnot.

Fool wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 6:55 pm

Tom Booth wrote:Work, PV work or otherwise is still work output performed by the working fluid.

Yes but per Carnot it is not part of the work output. It is part of the energy rejected to the atmosphere/heat sink. It just doesn't come out through the cold plate. Hence it is energy rejected per Carnot, but not through the cold plate. Hence why you witnessed the cold plate being cold. It is work output reduction per Carnot.

Your reaching.

Work output is work output. The piston does WORK displacing atmosphere.

Your just trying to "save" your teetering "Carnot limit" BS with some convoluted logic.

You could also say heat from friction is heat "rejection" as well, and I have seen that argument put forward too, on forums, websites and in textbooks.

There seems to be no real "authority" or agreement about these "gray areas" where "work" is converted back into heat by friction.

Does the earths atmosphere as a gigantic "buffer" increase in temperature by the work the tiny little piston does?

I suppose.

Regardless, no "waste heat" is added to the "cold hole" so as far as my interests are concerned (Tesla's Self-Acting engine). It is irrelevant if "fool" thinks heat from friction or some buffer pressure heat should be counted as "Carnot heat 'rejection'"

If if has no influence on the "cold hole" then as far as I'm concerned it is irrelevant. Not "rejected" to the cold hole, so "waste heat" or not, of little consequence.

Who cares if heat is "rejected" back to the hot side? It just helps power the engine for the next cycle.

Except that heat rejected to the atmosphere from the atmosphere, doesn't heat the air any. It's just wasted lost effort to the atmosphere and a reduction of efficiency. And part of the Carnot rule.

Furthermore, many of your experiments use energy to heat the hot plate, and reject that energy to the cold room. The atmosphere is both keeping the cold plate cold, and absorbing rejected work missing the cold plate.

VincentG wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 6:26 pm

You are ignoring the PV work being done directly to the atmosphere by the piston.

The pressure of the atmosphere does not change so the area of this curve would be zero, but the work is not zero.

This should be a good example of how a PV chart does not tell the whole story.

Yes the pressure, temperature, and volume of the atmosphere do not change. The volume of the cylinder-piston atmosphere does change. Per stroke there is a constant PV work done. Equal and opposite. Zero area on a PV diagram. So the total work output by the engine for a complete cycle isn't changed by that work.

The PV diagram for this would be a straight line from TDC to BDC at atmospheric pressure, with an arrow for forward and reverse strokes. In reality there would be a very slight amount of hysteresis. More work to push the piston out, less work returned going in, for a PV loss. Ignoring friction loss, which would be an additive loss.

The problem comes on the power stroke, expansion, buffer pressure is in opposition to the internal gas pressure. It reduces the work done during that stroke. That opposition is in direct proportion to the temperature difference. 400 K to 300 K so the atmosphere absorbs 75% of the power during that stroke. The absorbed energy blows away in the atmosphere as thermal energy at atmospheric temperature.

The return stroke adds the power back, useful power, but less heat because the internal gas temperature is cooler than for the power stroke. PV at a much lower Pressure. So, the cold plate has less heat to reject.

The energy is rejected to the cold sink/atmosphere, but not through the cold plate.

PV is actually "P•∆V".


.