Heating a gas, then expanding.

[Fool]

The so-called "formula" to begin with is nothing but a measure of two temperatures, a hot and a cold "reservoir". To suggest these factors completely external to an engine have anything whatsoever to do with the engines "efficiency" is the "extraordinary claim". Completely illogical, unsupportable and contrary to observable facts and experimental outcomes.

I appears to me that you are ascribing only those factors internal to an engine to the causes of efficiency of the engine and system. Even so, this will include the thermodynamic cycle of the engine and the system temperatures.

The thermodynamic cycle is constrained by the type of cycle and the temperatures available for the cycle.

A real engine is constrained by nature. The Carnot limit just models an ideal cycle.

The Carnot Limit was originally developed by studying the Carnot Cycle. Other efficiencies formulas were developed for other ideal cycles constrained by the same temperature limits. Some were found to be less efficient, steam, I.C., etc...

This was further expanded to the measured indicator diagrams from real engines. The real engine cycles were found to be even less efficient.

It was also found that internal engine factors, such as friction made them even less efficient.

It has been calculated over and over that there has not been a better cycle efficiency than the ideal Carnot. Some are the same, Stirling, Ericsson.

Therefore the Carnot limit not only applies to the original cycle but to every other conceived cycle so far. In fact if a better cycle is found, it will allow for perpetual motion, over unity, theoretically. So the theory stand as a natural limit.

So the Carnot limit basically says if you break that limit you also break the first law of thermodynamics. Free over unity perpetual motion energy. It naturally can't happen.

You can't run Tesla's cold hole without having the ability to use a heat pump to create a hot peak, thus perpetual motion, over unity.

This is only provable by mathematics because nature makes it impossible to build a supernatural engine.

I tried to explain it simply but you got caught up in the non-existent contradiction semantics battle. It is an ideal cycle limit. It is a supernatural limit that no engine could possibly achieve. Hence it isn't modeling any engine.

[Fool]

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

What do you want it to mean? Do you want it to have one meaning?

I very rarely use it to depict energy that doesn't need to be paid for, because there really isn't such a thing.

Most people use it to depict over unity, perpetual motion, and a violation of the conservation of energy.

How do you tell the difference? By the process the person is talking. Cold hole theory is a violation of both the first and second laws, hence a perpetual motion, over unity, fantasy scheme.

[Goofy]

@Fool

Ups !

It´s very hard for a high-grade over-teacher, to answer a simple question, I will try once more :

(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 ?"


Quote:

"I very rarely use it to depict energy that doesn't need to be paid for, because there really isn't such a thing."

Well, I have solar panels and I think the energy from those, are "such a thing" !

You are biased in mind, that the "free energy" Tesla was talking about, is the same, as the scams on the subject on YouTube today.

I have never said ANY-thing about "Perpetual/overunity engines", they can´t exit.

YOU are the one, who brings these terms in use.

Fore what reason I don´t know. I am building engines.

And as Tesla; I am trying "to secure the greatest economy of transformation of heat into mechanical energy"

Isn´t this what we all in this forum are trying to achieve ?

My Process is also a open system, which allows me to exchange mass, whit the environment.

- IF, I can harvest heat/energy from the ambient air in this process, I would also name it as "free".

Is that wrong ?

- But you are implicit calling me, Tom and a lot of other people for "free energy quarks" or what-ever,
for proposing it should possible to utilize the heat surrounding us ? ? ?

Looking forward to your answer . . . .

BR

[Tom Booth]

Crude oil is "free energy", if you happen to have it on your property.

https://youtube.com/shorts/_4jLuHStaNg

[matt brown]

Free energy is power from a NATURAL source usually via a SINGLE PROCESS like a waterfall, windmill or...solar panels.

Some free energy schemes do involve a cycle like tidal power plants or OTEC (ocean thermal energy conversion).

Over unity (perpetual motion) is power from a MAN MADE "source" via a CYCLE where you input energy prior output.

Anyone scheming cold hole nonsense is uninformed (under statement) and anyone preaching such is a quack. The only "cold hole" possibility is the "overnight" scheme which uses a time variant vs the common "on demand" scheme/s. Note that the overnight scheme uses a natural cycle vs the on demand scheme uses a man made cycle.

Any cold hole fanboy should just cut to the chase and use ambient pressure vs ambient temperature...

[Goofy]

@Fool-quote :

"Cold hole theory is a violation of both the first and second laws, hence a perpetual motion, over unity, fantasy scheme"

Hmm, again a grunt from the hammock . . .

So the thermopile analog he used to visualize his idea, was violating "booth" 1´ & 2` law ? ? ?

Waauu, Even acknowledged academic's at that time didn't realize this, but Fool do ! ! !

They will eventually be happy to hear you, correcting you them.

But, Please Fool, could you eventually provide us with some sources, from where you have these postulates ?

Otherwise; I can just regard you post´s on this subject as "opinions", but you are presenting them as facts.

Just like this statement :

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

When, where, by who or what ? ? ?

You are fast to hit the keys, when you want "precise data" from "correct lab-practice" and "high-calibrated" equipment.

You have no respect for ordinary, . . . yeah, let´s just call them/us/me, small-shop mechanic's.

- But the main part of great inventions in this world, have beside your thought's, mostly been done in garages and small sheds,
than in polished offices with comfy furniture's . . .

Provide us with some "facts"

BR

[matt brown]

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.

I had one until the Men in Black stole it and burned my lab while I was out of town at an over unity event. If you value my work, please consider joining my patreon group so that WE can save the world (whatever that means).

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."

sweet

[Fool]

(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 ?"

My apologies for any name mixing I've done between you and anyone else. By the way I'm glad you are here asking questions.

Considering that "free energy" is a common colloquial term, it by itself, is not "wrong" to call ambient energy free energy.

It is wrong of Tesla to think he can convert ambient energy to useful work using a self built cold hole and get more work back out than he used to make the cold hole.

The term "free energy quack" is applied to people that say that they can get energy out of ambient in excess of the energy put in to make the cold hole.

Hence, "free energy quack" has a different definition for "free energy", but can have the same meaning if referred to Tesla's "cold hole" theory and his use of ambient energy.

As Matt has pointed out it depends on how the cold is obtained. Typically, in the case of solar power schemes it is a plate heated in the sun to well above ambient and the ambient becomes the cold hole side. As Matt has also pointed out, it can also be day and night temperature differences. And there is a constant flow of energy in and out. Tesla's is a half isolated system, no flow of energy out, only work out, 2nd law violation.

There needs to be a way of producing a pressure difference by temperature difference, and a repetitious and complete cycle for work to be output by an engine continuously, power out.

You have no respect for ordinary, . . . yeah, let´s just call them/us/me, small-shop mechanic's.

I have plenty of respect for you and Tom doing experiments. I'm just asking to tread lightly on extraordinary conclusions, without extraordinary data. I've tried to explain what additional data measurement is needed.

So the thermopile analog he used to visualize his idea, was violating "booth" 1´ & 2` law ? ?

You haven't provided enough information. Who is he, what is his analog? Can you please supply a quote? Thermal piles are limited by the same efficiencies as all heat engines. They will not break, and have not broken, the classic theories.

I had one until the Men in Black stole it and burned my lab while I was out of town at an over unity event. If you value my work, please consider joining my patreon group so that WE can save the world (whatever that means).

Ain't it the truth!

[Tom Booth]

If "overunity" means more energy out than in, then it would seem that any refrigeration system, heat pump or air conditioner with a COP >1 is "overunity".

The "overunity" ice machine patent by the "father of refrigeration" John Gorrie is worth a careful read in that respect.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US8080A/en

I'd recommend downloading the PDF as Google's OCR rendering is largely garbled and unreadable.

Gorrie states or strongly implies several times in the patent that once in operation his ice making machine could run, virtually without an external power source.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US8080A/en

It has already been intimated that the power consumed in compressing air is nearly all recovered in the force exerted by its subsequent dilatation, and it has been shown in what way the force required to in
ject the water for receiving the heat of the
condensed air may be, in a great measure, de rived from the pressure of the air in the reservoir. It is evident that a mechanical apparatus admitting of such a system of compensations must operate, in theory at least, without the consumption of any power other than that required to overcome its friction,

Charles Tripler went further claiming that his liquid air making machine, powered by liquid air, could produce 10 gallons of liquid air for every three gallons of liquid air consumed producing a "surplusage" of 7 gallons.

Scott Robertson, through his researches gathered together some 200 or so similar historical accounts

Unfortunately he is still in the process of reconstructing his website:

https://www.aircaraccess.com/achf-intro.html

The common thread I've noticed in many of these "cold hole" type perpetual compressor/refrigerators is that the heat of compression is removed DURING the compression, which not only facilitates the compression process by causing the compressed gas to "contract" but also allows the recovery and reuse of the heat

In nearly all cases, the inventors were relentlessly attacked by lunatic, self appointed "Carnot Limit" enforcers.

What motivates these people?

[Tom Booth]

One disclosure in Gorrie's ice machine patent I found particularly interesting is the following:

The refrigeratory effects of air dilating from the removal of pressure can be rendered available to the fullest extent only when the expansion is gradual, because time is required to enable it to absorb heat, and therefore the employment of the compressed air as a mechanic agent retards its expansion sufficiently to allow it to absorb the greatest amount of heat from the liquid of the jet and the walls of the cylinder, thus being an advantage to the
freezing process.

Gorrie wanted to slow down the expansion process so that the expanding and cooling air would have more TIME to absorb heat. To that end, he employed the expanding gas, not only for absorbing heat but also as a source of mechanical power, to do some "work".

His intention was simply to slow down the expansion of the air to allow more time for heat absorption. He apparently did not recognize the conversion of heat into work itself as a method for effecting additional cooling, he just saw making the expanding gas perform some work helping to drive his machine as a way of slowing down the expansion process.

The result, however, was a very effective ice making machine.

Joule had only just begun experiments demonstarting the equivalence between heat and work at that time.

[matt brown]

The common thread I've noticed in many of these "cold hole" type perpetual compressor/refrigerators is that the heat of compression is removed DURING the compression, which not only facilitates the compression process by causing the compressed gas to "contract" but also allows the recovery and reuse of the heat

In nearly all cases, the inventors were relentlessly attacked by lunatic, self appointed "Carnot Limit" enforcers.

_________________________

150-300k Stirling engine cycle with zero buffer pressure

1:4 expansion from 300k 4bar to 300k 1 bar
Cv regen from 300k 1 bar to 150k .5 bar
4:1 compression from 150k .5 bar to 150k 2 bar
Cv regen from 150k 2 bar to 300k 4 bar

expansion Wpos is 2x compression Wneg, thus Carnot=.50
_________________________

150-300k Stirling refeer cycle with zero buffer pressure

4:1 compression from 300k 1 bar to 300k 4 bar
Cv regen from 300k 4 bar to 150k 2 bar
1:4 expansion from 150k 2 bar to 150k .5 bar
Cv regen from 150k .5 bar to 300k 1 bar

compression Wneg is 2x expansion Wpos, thus Carnot=.50

note no heat to recycle since sink is 300k
________________________

150-300k cold hole Stirling engine BS with zero buffer pressure

1:4 expansion from 300k 4bar to 300k 1 bar
Cv regen from 300k 1 bar to 150k .5 bar
4:1 CONTRACTION from 150k .5 bar to 150k 2 bar
Cv regen from 150k 2 bar to 300k 4 bar

contraction is stupid ass buzz for req'd volume reduction which avoids
(a) mechanical force for compression work
(b) heat sink equal compression work that would fill up cold hole

And now Carnot=1.0 by the magic of "contraction".

To avoid inconvenience of zero buffer pressure (aka vacuum) typical scheme concocts PVT values whereby ambient pressure conveniently supplies...contraction.

What motivates these people?

They're Bozos or conmen. Anyone who needs a calculator to check above values needs a new hobby...

Regardless of the volume ratio, any Stirling cycle will have Wpos/Wneg = Thigh/Tlow and Carnot wins.

[Tom Booth]

What motivates these people?

They're Bozos or conmen.

Really?

I was referring to people like you.

Carnot wins.

yay-excited.gif (145.94 KiB) Viewed 4373 times

[Fool]

If "overunity" means more energy out than in, then it would seem that any refrigeration system, heat pump or air conditioner with a COP >1 is "overunity".

The "overunity" ice machine patent by the "father of refrigeration" John Gorrie is worth a careful read in that respect.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US8080A/en

I'd recommend downloading the PDF as Google's OCR rendering is largely garbled and unreadable.

Gorrie states or strongly implies several times in the patent that once in operation his ice making machine could run, virtually without an external power source.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US8080A/en

It has already been intimated that the power consumed in compressing air is nearly all recovered in the force exerted by its subsequent dilatation, and it has been shown in what way the force required to in
ject the water for receiving the heat of the
condensed air may be, in a great measure, de rived from the pressure of the air in the reservoir. It is evident that a mechanical apparatus admitting of such a system of compensations must operate, in theory at least, without the consumption of any power other than that required to overcome its friction,

Charles Tripler went further claiming that his liquid air making machine, powered by liquid air, could produce 10 gallons of liquid air for every three gallons of liquid air consumed producing a "surplusage" of 7 gallons.

Scott Robertson, through his researches gathered together some 200 or so similar historical accounts

Unfortunately he is still in the process of reconstructing his website:

https://www.aircaraccess.com/achf-intro.html

The common thread I've noticed in many of these "cold hole" type perpetual compressor/refrigerators is that the heat of compression is removed DURING the compression, which not only facilitates the compression process by causing the compressed gas to "contract" but also allows the recovery and reuse of the heat

In nearly all cases, the inventors were relentlessly attacked by lunatic, self appointed "Carnot Limit" enforcers.

What motivates these people?

Two things: Over unity doesn't apply to COP's. It would apply to a combined engine heat pump scheme.

It is odd how all those machines, claiming over unity, 100 + years ago, all stopped working about 100 years ago. Did our ability to make good machines in garages suddenly go bad 100 years ago? Or, was the second law absent, and suddenly pop into existence causing those machines to suddenly quit working?

Or was it the practice of puffery to grandiose advertisement to the point of leaving choice important damning data out of those descriptions?

[Tom Booth]

...
Over unity doesn't apply to COP's. ...

Why not?

You put in, say 1 unit of energy and get out 10.

10 is "over" 1 isn't it?

IMO it's just that refrigeration has become so ubiquitous it can no longer be suppressed or denied.

So to preserve the completely bogus, completely disproven, completely invalidated "Carnot Limit"...

Well,... We'll just call it by some other name . Instead of "efficiency" we'll just call it COP.

More out than in is still more out than in.

It doesn't apply because it's just plain altogether wrong. But we can go on and still pretend it applies in those areas where it has not yet been fully and conclusively proven wrong.

But you're so insecure you have to spend all your time on a hobby model engine forum attacking people trying to improve the efficiency of their little toy engines and posting YouTube videos. How pathetic

[Fool]

Why not?

Because it doesn't count all the energy input. Heat and work.
100 work in, 300 heat in, 400 delivered. Energy ballance 1. COP 4.

Over unity applies to engines with only one energy input. 400 Joules heat in, 100 Joules out as work conversion efficiency 0.25, plus 300 Joules to the cold sink. Unity one. Ballance of energy 1. Efficiency 0.25 or 25% .

The problem the second law contends with is conversion efficiency. Heat to work. The temperatures limit that conversion by lack of forward pressure and residual backwards pressure.



n=(Th-Tc)/Th max.

COP=Th/(Th-Tc) max.

They are inverses of each other.