Stirlingengineforum.com

"fool" your brains are caught in a whirlpool of numbers, charts, diagrams and imaginary "cycles".

You need a dose of reality.

Spend some time closely examining the actual operation of a real engine, you might learn something, but I seriously doubt it.

You are blinded by your "education" to see only what you've been instructed to see, which has no correspondence to reality.

This article is an engaging abundance of enlightening information that is intriguing and elegantly composed. I praise your diligent work on this and thank you for this data. You have what it takes to get consideration.  juwa 777 online casino login

Tom Booth wrote:I've provided references for my approach.

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

Except you don't measure the heat entering the engine in your approach. You way over power the hot side with more Wattage than the engine can possibly absorb. You don't measure the heat out, or work output. Then you make the erroneous claim that Tc means 'zero heat', when all it really says is that the cold plate is doing its job by staying at the constant temperature Tc. Big deal, meaningless banter. Tc doesn't equal Qc.

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

It tells the story just fine. The story it tells is that the atmosphere can be ignored, regarding efficiency. And can be ignored for total, work output and heat transfer. It also demonstrates that it is wrong to include it for one stroke, and not the others.

.

Fool wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 1:24 am

Tom Booth wrote:I've provided references for my approach.

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

.... Then you make the erroneous claim that Tc means 'zero heat', when all it really says is that the cold plate is doing its job by staying at the constant temperature Tc. Big deal, meaningless banter. Tc doesn't equal Qc.
...

I've measured Tc, with the engine running with the cold side under insulation, to be lower in temperature than the ambient surroundings.

Do you believe heat can transfer from cold to hot?

Or a material can "do it's job" of transferring heat without any temperature difference?

Heat cannot transfer without some temperature difference and certainly not backwards from a colder engine to warmer surroundings.

Personally I'm not concerned about exact quantities down to the micro-joule

No waste heat leaving through the cold side is no waste heat leaving the cold side. That is the critical issue.

If you want more detailed data, feel free to do your own experiments.

Oh, sorry, I forgot your just a chat bot.

"Do you believe heat can transfer from cold to hot?"

As you've said, what I believe doesn't matter. Nor does what you believe.

I'm a chat bot, coooool!

Fool wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 9:04 am "Do you believe heat can transfer from cold to hot?"

As you've said, what I believe doesn't matter. Nor does what you believe.

I'm a chat bot, coooool!

Well, it is a generally accepted scientific fact that heat cannot be transfered from cold to hot, so your opinion that heat is transfered from a colder engine to a warmer ambient environment is contrary to accepted science.

I've seen no reason experimentally or otherwise to conclude that accepted science is wrong in that regard.

Guessing where the heat is going doesn't count. Did you measure any lower temperatures in the gas? Did you measure any indicator diagrams? Did you measure any work out?

Quit bashing thermodynamics.

Fool wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2024 6:19 am Guessing where the heat is going doesn't count.

Tesla was only concerned with one of two possibilities.

Either "heat" passes through the engine and out the cold side, or it is converted into "other forms of energy" that have no influence on the "cold hole".

I have no concern or anxiety about where the heat might be going. If your concerned about it, as I've said probably a dozen times already, feel free to conduct your own experiments and do your own measurements or put together whatever silly charts and graphs you like. It's no concern of mine.

Did you measure any lower temperatures in the gas? Did you measure any indicator diagrams? Did you measure any work out?

Quit bashing thermodynamics.

I'm hardly "bashing thermodynamics".

I'm simply doing research, making observations, conducting experiments and reporting on the results of experiments.

Others use "thermodynamics" in an effort to "bash" me and discredit the clear experimental results, which are only intended to reveal truth. What that means to thermodynamicists is really no more a concern of mine than what it might mean to a practitioner of glossolalia.

Incidentally, as a consequence of the attacks against my work, I've been forced to look into and give some consideration to the "Carnot limit" and to some extent, the "2nd so-called "Law", entropy, etc. and give it some evaluation.

Looks to me like unscientific, unproven, baseless, confused and confusing, poorly defined, unfalsifiable, ludicrous nonsense.

That's not "bashing". Just my sober, unbiased evaluation. It's all fantasy world nonsense from top to bottom.

Aside from some well established principles, such as conservation of energy.

Since you are lacking key measurements, you findings are a form of bashing. Dismissal of well established theory with poorly constricted equipment and writeups.

Fool wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2024 8:25 pm Since you are lacking key measurements, you findings are a form of bashing. Dismissal of well established theory with poorly constricted equipment and writeups.

Hardly anything in thermodynamics is "well established".

Take so-called "entropy".

I read over and over that you cannot have a decrease in entropy without an entropy increase "somewhere else in the universe".

That is absolutely "unfalsifiable", unscientific, and in no way subject to any kind of experimental validation.

Total nonsensical crap.

You are, of course, entitled to express your opinion. I'm also entitled to express mine, unless of course the EU has its way.

So you've been saying over and over, but no consistent theory from you.

Entropy Theory is consistent even in Quantum Mechanics.

Fool wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2024 9:01 am So you've been saying over and over, but no consistent theory from you.
...

So what.

Science is first of all a matter of making observations.

My observations so far, as far as I'm concerned, have ruled out the so-called "Carnot limit".

For the most part I've also ruled out some of Tesla's assumptions. Heat is not "compelled" to "flow" into a "cold hole". His thinking seems to have been partially contaminated by caloric theory.

What he correctly deduced, apparently, is that heat does not pass through a heat engine, but rather, is converted to mechanical motion. He actually seems to have underestimated the degree to which this is true

Apparently not only does the heat NOT pass through, but some or the work output derived from the heat converted into work goes towards refrigeration or "pumping" additional heat away from or out of the so-called "cold hole" without any necessity for driving some external or additional heat pump.

Therefore, in theory, two engines running "back to back" should be able to maintain a shared "cold hole" without any additional contrivance, one engine, in effect "insulating" the other from the surrounding ambient heat powering them both.

You have no clue.

You think what you want, oblivious to peer comments.

Science is not limited to observations. It is not a first and foremost requirement. It is a combination of rigorous practices of things that make knowledge more reliable. It includes but not limited to, nor requiring, logic, organization, mathematics, theory, testing, observation, recording, retesting, different viewpoints, peer review, publishing, teaching, learning, etc...

If you don't have all that your observation is less reliable. Sort of like watching a self deluding magic trick.

Simplifying science the way you do is erroneous.

Why you have a temperature anomaly is to be determined. Science starts with an anomaly, and skepticism. You are misguiding everyone with a outlandish conclusion based on nothing more than inconclusive and sometimes poorly orchestrated experimental data.

I'm being kind. Most scientists won't even talk with you. Hence the bannings.

Fool wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2024 1:58 pm ....
Science is not limited to observations. ...

I didn't say it was. Straw man.

a temperature anomaly

You try and dismiss experimental results, repeated consistent experimental results as an "anomaly", because those results contradict your theories based only on 150 year old obsolete speculations that have never been empirically verified.

"Carnot efficiency" has all the earmarks of a pseudoscience. One of which is dismissal of experimental evidence in favor of theory, unfalsifiability, etc. etc.

I'm following scientific methodology, something Carnot never did before publishing his baseless brain fart that heat engines were just like mill wheels with heat running through like water

I didn't say you said that. You are the one that brought up what science is.