All types and size Stirling Engines
https://stirlingengineforum.boydhouse.com/
https://stirlingengineforum.boydhouse.com/viewtopic.php?t=5601
How?
The videos are awesome. Thanks for posting those. Watching the top of the displacer dome make liquid air recalls Tom's contention that mechanical work can reduce the temperature of the working fluid, although this is work put into the sytem rather than work done by the system.Fool wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2024 4:20 am I know you've seen the following two video links before. When you make engines as capable as these, or better, using your theories, people will be more willing to listen. Until then you will get a lot of opposition. Be very kind to those that stop to listen, and even kinder to those that enter into discussions. You have nothing to lose by doing so.
In the videos it is very important to notice the correlation of heat flow direction, absorption, rejection, and to the rotational direction. It is important to notice the description of the head difference between engine and refrigerator. And this was all done in the 1940's and 50's. This is the closest I have found to your requested information. Temperatures blatantly obvious and at large differentials.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GqIapDKtvzc
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GFfMruoRMGo
If the Carnot limit is 20%, the reversed Carnot will have a COP of 5, ideally. The two hooked together will return 100% of the heat back to the hot source, removing all heat rejected to the cold sink. That is acceptable constant theory.
If you hook a new engine to that reversed Carnot that is 21% efficient and of the same size and other constraints, it will return 101% of the heat back to the hot source. This is called, "Over Unity".
I'm currently working with a physicist on a purely electrical thruster that works in vacuum. No back reaction. It defies Newton's laws of motion. Replicated by four labs so far, a results paper is currenly being reviewed, and a space test is coming next year.I hope someone does build an over unity machine. It just doesn't seem likely. But I don't want to discourage anyone. We, humans Earth, need it.
That's hardly my "contention", it's a well established fact. Textbook physics/thermodynamics.
With that statement, you are basically calling me a liar. Someone who lies just for jollies. I'll Iet you know now, I don't appreciate being misrepresented and slandard.Stroller wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2024 11:01 pmThe engine doesn't run on heat. It runs on differentials in heat, and therefore pressure. The bigger the differential in pressure throughout the cycle, the more driving force on the piston. And yes, Virginia, making the cold side cooler will increase the differential.Tom Booth wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2024 3:51 pm I came across two opposing theories. One says basically heat is a fluid and runs through a heat engine like water. The other says heat is energy and basically "disappears" inside the engine, as it is converted to work.
If the latter is true, then it is really not necessary to design an engine around the idea that you MUST make ample provision for getting rid of 90% or the heat you supply to the engine.
I don't know, but intentionally throwing away 90% of the stuff that a heat engine is supposed to run on didn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
But you know all that, and you're just being provocative and muddying the waters for the fun of it.
...
Extracts from Unpublished Writings of Carnot:Heat is simply motive power, or rather motion which has changed form. It is a movement among the particles of bodies. Wherever there is destruction of motive power there is, at the same time, production of heat in quantity exactly proportional to the quantity of motive power destroyed. Reciprocally, wherever there is destruction of heat, there is production of motive power.
OK. If you don't think Stirling engines run on differentials in pressure and that increasing the temperature differential by cooling the cold side will increase the pressure differential then I'm sorry.Tom Booth wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2024 3:56 pmWith that statement, you are basically calling me a liar. Someone who lies just for jollies. I'll Iet you know now, I don't appreciate being misrepresented and slandard.Stroller wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2024 11:01 pmThe engine doesn't run on heat. It runs on differentials in heat, and therefore pressure. The bigger the differential in pressure throughout the cycle, the more driving force on the piston. And yes, Virginia, making the cold side cooler will increase the differential.Tom Booth wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2024 3:51 pm I came across two opposing theories. One says basically heat is a fluid and runs through a heat engine like water. The other says heat is energy and basically "disappears" inside the engine, as it is converted to work.
If the latter is true, then it is really not necessary to design an engine around the idea that you MUST make ample provision for getting rid of 90% or the heat you supply to the engine.
I don't know, but intentionally throwing away 90% of the stuff that a heat engine is supposed to run on didn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
But you know all that, and you're just being provocative and muddying the waters for the fun of it.
...
To avoid such a situation arising, I won't respond to your posts any more. To avoid me being tempted to, please don't respond to mine either.
I'll respond (politely) as I see fit, in particular any time I'm being misrepresented, my experiments are being criticized, my intentions are being falsely represented, foolish theories regarding my experiments are being put forward in an effort to dismiss my data, etc. etc.
That is a conditional "apology" based on a misrepresentation of my position, so actually no apology at all.
Not "pressure".The engine doesn't run on heat. It runs on differentials in heat
We may be allowed to express here an hypothesis in regard to the nature of heat.
At present, light is generally regarded as the result of a vibratory movement of the ethereal fluid. Light produces heat, or at least accompanies the radiating heat, and moves with the same velocity as heat. Radiating heat is then a vibratory movement. It would be ridiculous to suppose that it is an emission of matter while the light which accompanies it could be only a movement.
Could a motion (that of radiating heat) produce matter (caloric)?
No, undoubtedly; it can only produce a motion. Heat is then the result of a motion.
Then it is plain that it could be produced by the consumption of motive power, and that it could produce this power.
All the other phenomena—composition and decomposition of bodies, passage to the gaseous state, specific heat, equilibrium of heat, its more or less easy transmission, its constancy in experiments with the calorimeter—could be explained by this hypothesis. But it would be difficult to explain why, in the development of motive power by heat, a cold body is necessary; why, in consuming the heat of a warm body, motion cannot be produced.
It appears very difficult to penetrate into the real essence of bodies. To avoid erroneous reasoning, it would be necessary to investigate carefully the source of our knowledge in regard to the nature of bodies, their form, their forces; to see what the primitive notions are, to see from what impressions they are derived; to see how one is raised successively to the different degrees of abstraction.
Is heat the result of a vibratory motion of molecules? If this is so, quantity of heat is simply quantity of motive power. As long as motive power is employed to produce vibratory movements, the quantity of heat must be unchangeable; which seems to follow from experiments with the calorimeter; but when it passes into movements of sensible extent, the quantity of heat can no longer remain constant.
Can examples be found of the production of motive power with actual consumption of heat? It seems that we may find production of heat with consumption of motive power (re-entrance of the air into a vacuum, for example).
What is the cause of the production of heat in combinations of substances? What is radiant caloric?
Liquefaction of bodies, solidification of liquids, crystallization—are they not forms of combinations of integrant molecules?
Supposing heat due to a vibratory movement, how can the passage from the solid or the liquid to the gaseous state be explained?
When motive power is produced by the passage of heat from the body A to the body B, is the quantity of this heat which arrives at B (if it is not the same as that which has been taken from A, if a portion has really been consumed to produce motive power) the same whatever may be the substance employed to realize the motive power?
Is there any way of using more heat in the production of motive power, and of causing less to reach the body B? Could we even utilize it entirely, allowing none to go to the body B? If this were possible, motive power could be created without consumption of combustible, and by mere destruction of the heat of bodies.
Should have been
What is actually going on?
I think this is the unicorn forest Matt always talks about.The added energy has increased pressure, but temperature? Possibly, but this is apparently not essential. So how, or in what way is the engine "running on" i.e. powered by a temperature difference?