VincentG wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2024 10:12 am
Yes Tom and Carnot can both be correct.
If Carnot had access to a Stirling cryocooler he likely would have update his work to reflect his new discovery, and Tom would never have had to take interest in the matter at all.
If Tom tries and fails to build a self cooling machine he might think it impossible, while it could be possible all along.
Isn't that why we're on this forum.
Both of you should take a chill pill.
It seems so.
My biggest gripe is :
Tom Booth wrote:I'm quite sure Carnot himself would reject it as preposterous and disavow any association or responsibility.
Putting words in other people's mouths to serve your own ego is narcissistic at best. You two have no clue which way Carnot would lean, given the knowledge we have now. Even with Tom's data.
Even if Carnot had a cryo cooler, we can't assume what he would think or say. Remember, he introduced reversibility, and that is one of the beginnings of both cryo cooling and entropy.
Carnot was a mathematician. Mathematicians work in theory. Theory leads to more theories. Carnot may have understood how the math leads to the theorem, way better than any of us.
If Tom tries and fails, it may just be that he has failed for the same reason that thousands of others before him have failed, and there is a theory that suggest why that failure happens. The second law is developed from the first law and observed physical gas characteristics. The rigorous mathematical techniques used to develope that law should not be dismissed. It is not the same as a bishop dismissing the possibility of flight because God didn't give us wings, and then going home to his son's Wilbur and Orville Wright. Very ignorant of he. Ignorance begats belief begats dogmatic rule. Education provides the logic and mathematics capable of asking reasonable questions.
In the event that he succeeds, he has the right to claim success. Until then it is just a belief. I only have a minor problem with his claims of that belief. It would be better if it was scientific skepticism, as belief leads to baseless dogmatic argument. Such as claiming Carnot would stick up for him. Skepticism leads to reasonable questions. My skepticism of the first, second laws, and Tom's data leads me to reasonable questions. Indicator diagram, work output?
Until he succeeds, it is still a failure. In science, failure means your theory is wrong, your experiment is wrong, and or both. It can also mean both are correct, but you are combining them wrong.
Furthermore I'm not the one whom has devolved into insults instead of clear logic.
Tom Booth wrote:Fool, you can develop theories and make predictions based on modeling and mathematic calculations, but the ultimate acid test is experiment. If your theories, and mathematical "proofs" don't hold up experimentally it's your math and your modeling that's in error, not the observable, physical results.
In case you haven't noticed, good experimental results go hand in hand with good theoretical practices, and laboratory practices including excellent documentation, even including excellent video data. Missing any of that just gives way to more and better reinvestigations. Many people have suggested that is needed with your findings. Peer review, that's what you are asking for here.
The following is failure:
Theory wrong, data correct.
Theory correct, data wrong.
Theory wrong, data wrong.
Theory correct, data correct, combination wrong.
Falsifiable is a religious dogmatic decree.
Only if the theory and data agree is it science. The rest is failure.
Tom Booth wrote:Real science is based on observation and experiment, not mathematical guesswork
There is guess work, and mathematical guess work?Mathematics has a logical rigor that separates it from preachers claims that God prevents us from flying. Mathematics is a pathway from an observation, to an area not yet observed, but might be observed later. Science uses that power of prediction to improve reliability. Random guesses, just lead to many many repeated failures. Thousands of people have failed to produce over unity energy from nothing, or from a single ambient temperature, generating machine. A few claiming such, have been found to be liars. Don't become a liar. Be honest with yourself and others. Telling us you had the thermal couples plugged in backwards is being honest. Saying it doesn't matter, isn't.
If you think the mathematics is ludicrous, seek out help until you fully understand it.
Tom Booth wrote:It has zero legitimacy in my book. Ultimately if fails the acid test
The problem is acid tests have nothing to do with the thermodynamics of engines. Just don't fail the Kool-aid acid test. Hint: passing that test is by not taking that test.
VincentG wrote:This is worth a listen.
Thanks for the link. Tom's ranting about Carnot here is frustrating. It's like me calling that talk 'Psychobabble' without explaining why.
First it's 2 hours long, history, and doesn't lead to any new understanding of the concepts described. It's cherry picking statements as if it's comprehensive. His delivery style, for me, was hesitant, jerky, circular, and long winded. And as Tom said, lacking promised proof. The ending left us hanging. I came away not knowing what he wanted us to know, and nothing new. Zero definitive answer. Poor and confusing organizational logic. No conclusion. It seemed more twisted than the history. The history was way easier to follow. The history had a logical trend of learning, failure, analogy, errors, and success. His talk didn't. It was very painful for me to watch. You are welcome that I did. Robert Murrey Smith is miles better, and he psychobabbles too.
Sorry. Call to authority doesn't work with me.
The thermodynamics is what is important, not the history. Tom should get that too. Current theory is more important than where it came from. But if history is brought up, don't put words in their mouth. That is just disrespectful.
Tom Booth wrote:What nobody seems to understand is I'm not trying to build anything.
Your claim that you sent in a proposal to build an engine that was rejected on the grounds of its promise to break the second law, seems to refute that claim, along with many other hints of of your interests. Building is exactly what you are seeking.
Tom Booth wrote:History of a muddled up, confusing, wishy-washy philosophy that we pretend has been proven but never really was.
Some people just like to think so.
What history isn't? There is no proof in empiricism. Proofs are part of the mathematical and logic areas of science. Proofs only convert a rigorous connection between mathematical and logical constructs. Empiricism only demonstrates an observation, proves nothing. The acid test is for measuring good content.
You have been given several theoretical derivations of the second law from the first law, and gas laws. They are proofs.
Your experiment on a tiny slow moving engine with zero measured work output, appears to dispell the theory that insulating the cold side will make an engine heat up and stop. That has very little to do with the second law, which deals with the ratio of work output divided by heat in.
Claiming self cooling from the experimental evidence you've reported is very tentative. Your experimental data doesn't prevent it, but it hardly proves it either.
The second law hasn't been proven because the first law hasn't been proven. Only the free energy crowd thinks it's wrong. Scientific skepticism keeps that proof at bay, but science uses it as a reliable tool in analysing power generation.
No one yet has surpassed it.
Tom Booth/Carnot wrote:
"...there is produced in the body no other change of temperature than that due to change of volume..."
It's interesting that you would use that quote. It is very obviously a description of adiabatic expansion with thermodynamic work output resulting in a temperature decrease, but zero heat transfer.
What you have, in the past, failed to recognize is that any expansion, in a piston cylinder assembly, is with work.
External load has little to do with it. Any expansion we deal with, is with work and has the maximum temperature drop.
Carnot described it well enough.
Forcing an IC engine to output more work makes it hotter. When you come to a hill you step on the gas and the engine works harder and gets hotter.
The same thing would happen for a Stirling engine. You would step on the gas and the temperature Th would rise and the engine would work harder.
For an IC engine removing the load would make the engine over rev and blow up.
For a Stirling engine the hot plate Th would rise. The RPM's would increase, less time for heat to get in. Th would raise further. Eventually the hot plate would melt.
The temperature drop from expansion, volume change, would be the same loaded or not. Hot plate normal or melting.
Now that we know that Carnot talked of heat getting converted to work, we can stop saying people don't know that. We can also stop saying that we can force it to do more work by putting a load on it to get more temperature drop. Please.
Carnot's writings are among the first realizations of the fact that thermal energy gets converted to work in an expansion and temperature drop. It's also the first description of inputting of work for a compression and temperature increase.
The second law cements it in.
W = Qh-Qc says so. Nothing could be clearer. Only if Qh is zero or Qc=Qh would prove other wise. We already know that Qc can't be zero or smaller because W is never been seen to be larger than Qh.
.