Stirlingengineforum.com

In one PKK video, someone comments on an outlet socket about 20 ft up wall adjacent tower (they screwed up in that video and showed system setup).

After all Fool's support of science, I've been trying to figure out what to get him for Christmas...the philosopher's stone, Merlin's Sword or the Holy Grail, whereupon the later gave me an idea. How about the Mother Lode: my top secret plans for a novel 24/7-AM/PM (alternate method/perpetual motion) engine design ???


This sucker comes in 3 basic output versions similar small, medium and large. Sooo many guys have wasted sooo much time chasing a buoyancy PMD where 2 tubes are connected via a magic gate that passes balls between a down tube and an up tube. Behold, I've solved the problem via 2 different density fluids. Note balls can be either heavy or light weight, whatever floats your boat.

While pondering which version Fool could best utilize, I remembered my old "go big or go home" mantra and schemed a Grande Dame model where the fluid density differential is 9x !!!


I left the balls solid here so that any Doubting Thomas can sum shit easily. Hopefully, this sucker is powerful enough that Fool can sell some extra power to his neighbors. What's the magic fluid/s....yellow=water and orange=bismuth alloy with a melting point ~150F, so a proof-of-concept could be modified graduated cylinder supported in beaker on hot plate after holiday dinner (a la Lavoisier). Ya know...glue a Meccano girder on a graduated cylinder and place a sprocket at each end prior slinging chain thru cylinder and hanging your balls (lol). Make sure you attach this cylinder 'jig' to beaker securely. If you prefer "neutral buoyancy" with heavy fluid then brass has similar density to bismuth alloy. And don't worry about lame negative energy of input, since once this sucker gets up to speed (yee-haw) minor friction will nix external heat input to keep bismuth alloy warm.

Be careful when you make the full size version, since you don't want to shake your digs apart like that other guy once did (forgot his name). Good luck and may the force be with you...

I think there's a way this sucker could actually slowly rotate, but output would be meager. Can anyone spot this mod ???

Fool wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 10:17 pm .

Matt, thanks for adding another scam to the mix.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... w2JPVGsAnX

Wow!

You link to an 8 year old thread where a few guys are speculating about a technology they clearly don't understand.

And that was, I think, three years prior to any installations, apparently.

All the links on that old forum thread are dead, and it seems the Wayback Machine is down at the moment but that is far from proving or even providing any evidence of the company being a "scam".

Personally, if what is demonstrated in the videos I posted could work - the "buoyancy motor" running an electric generator that then runs an electric motor that then powers a compressor pump to fill a tank that dissipates all the heat of compression then efficiency could be greatly improved.

Couple it directly to a mechanical compressor, eliminating all the electrical conversion and transmission loses and use an intercooler, putting heat of compression into the tank water to heat the air canisters increasing buoyancy.

Anyway, as VincentG pointed out, if any of these contraptions could work at all, it should be relatively easy and inexpensive to build a small working model.

It could sit on a bookshelf and run like the "dippy bird" all day and all night.

It would make a great novelty item.

That it requires government grants and forever more and more millions in investment capitol to construct the first utility scale system before a small working model can be produced I don't buy.

If it actually works, anyone should be able to make one in their garage using plastic drinking bottles and a small (12 volt type) air compressor. Or even some pill bottles and an air pump for a fish tank.

If it can be scaled up it can be scaled down.

No reason it couldn't run just one home or one appliance.

So why an "entry level system" must be for 11,000 homes?

matt brown wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2024 1:50 am In one PKK video, someone comments on an outlet socket about 20 ft up wall adjacent tower (they screwed up in that video and showed system setup).

...

Then provide the link to the video or the comment or something.

Otherwise I assume you're lying as you're generally full of shit anyway.

.

Tommy, Accusing Matt of lying is lame at best. Grow up. All he's pointing out is that scams have been around for years, and plentiful and common.

Matt, The one extra ball in the melted metal has the opposite buoyancy to the 9 balls in the yellow water. 10 times the buoyancy than the ones in the yellow water. The system will stop with a ball partially floating on the metal between different substances.

If filled completely with water, it might work if one tube were heated and one cooled. Sort of like a Galileo thermometer. Probably in excess of warm piss.

Kind of like the picture in the opening post. The tower has very hot liquid compared to injected gas. Heat is rejected in the form of either exhausted gas at the top, and or, cooling the compressors. The heat pumps probably contribute nothing of value, and are a diversion tactic.

The patents pertain to connecting insulated pipe, and using the pipe as part of the tower structure. They also are about cascaded compressors, and heat pumps. Nothing regarding the overall energy device. Just pieces. Further more they seem to be nothing more than design patents not utility patents. Nothing more than their own fancy way of configuring things. More of a namesake than new working principals. As far as I can see without looking into it closely.

.

Fool wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2024 5:36 am .

Tommy, Accusing Matt of lying is lame at best. Grow up. All he's pointing out is that scams have been around for years, and plentiful and common.

It's not an accusations at all.

It's a conditional statement about how I would choose to classify his assertion.

Matt made a very specific accusation about seeing something plugged into a wall outlet in a video, or a comment he read that someone else saw this.

Without a reference it's just a baseless lie.

I'd like to check the reference, watch the video, see the supposed outlet or. Whatever it was supposed to be that supposedly proves the company is a scam and not very bright because you can see the boyancy device plugged into the wall in the demonstration video.

Total bull shit IMO..

But, if he can back up his statement with some actual fact he has an opportunity to prove me wrong and change my opinion.

I already watched several hours of video with people on the ground going over the machine with all kinds of instruments and I'm supposed to believe Matt picked out in a video what all these investigators and researchers there on the scene overlooked, though in plain sight

Total BS.

Put up or shut up liars.

You two are the scammers and ones perpetrating fraud here IMO.

Obvious shills.

Human scum.

You two think nothing of slandering inventors trying to do nothing but good.

But if you have REAL evidence it's a "scam" well that would be worse. So post the link please with the time stamp as anyone would have done in the first place if not lying.

.

The offending comment:

Matt Brown wrote:In one PKK video, someone comments on an outlet socket about 20 ft up wall adjacent tower (they screwed up in that video and showed system setup).

Wow! Tommy, grow up. His whole argument had little or nothing to do with that paragraph, an obvious joke. And your usual attack is nothing more than glorifying yourself as a putts. Good job. You failed to supply any information to this thread except what comes from the scam artists.

I think the angel in the upper right corner urging the scammers not to be scammers is even funnier. Where are the batteries hidden? LOL

As for your defence of obvious scams, an outlet with plugs inserted in a video is hardly definitive. Do you know what 'definitive' means?

Attacking useless humor is poor form.

.

.

Tommy wrote:Anyway, as VincentG pointed out, if any of these contraptions could work at all, it should be relatively easy and inexpensive to build a small working model.

I suppose if it doesn't work that wouldn't prove to you it was fake either. You'd just deny the device was built correctly. Even if you built it.

But as VincentG says it would be inexpensive to build a 10' proof/disproof of concept. You probably have enough scrap around your house to build one. A couple of 10' PVC pipes, an air compressor, and a simple water wheel for a turbine. And a nozzle or valve, to slow the downward flow, so the water wheel won't over fill.

By the way the pressure in the up tube needs to be lower than the highest pressure in the down tube, or it won't flow through the turbine.

.

Fool wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2024 1:15 pm .

The offending comment:

Matt Brown wrote:In one PKK video, someone comments on an outlet socket about 20 ft up wall adjacent tower (they screwed up in that video and showed system setup).

Wow! Tommy, grow up. His whole argument had little or nothing to do with that paragraph, an obvious joke. And your usual attack is nothing more than glorifying yourself as a putts. Good job. You failed to supply any information to this thread except what comes from the scam artists.

I think the angel in the upper right corner urging the scammers not to be scammers is even funnier. Where are the batteries hidden? LOL

As for your defence of obvious scams, an outlet with plugs inserted in a video is hardly definitive. Do you know what 'definitive' means?

Attacking useless humor is poor form.

.

You are both condemning these companies as "obvious scammers" with zero credible concrete evidence other than your usual "it's impossible" Cannot Limit opinions.

Show the video liars. Provide a link.

Neither of you are credible otherwise.

There is no indication that paragraph is an "obvious joke". Liar.

More like an obvious fabrication and a blatant smear and a lie.

Anyway, I still have an open mind. So if you or Matt can produce proof either of these "buoyancy" energy projects is a scam, please present it.

I don't like scammers or fraud any more than you do, but I'm not passing judgement without actual evidence and Matt's statement appears to be a blatant lie and now your claiming it was a joke is as good as an admission it was made up.

Thanks for the confession on "Matt's" behalf.

Fool wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2024 1:30 pm .

Tommy wrote:Anyway, as VincentG pointed out, if any of these contraptions could work at all, it should be relatively easy and inexpensive to build a small working model.

I suppose if it doesn't work that wouldn't prove to you it was fake either. You'd just deny the device was built correctly. Even if you built it.

But as VincentG says it would be inexpensive to build a 10' proof/disproof of concept. You probably have enough scrap around your house to build one. A couple of 10' PVC pipes, an air compressor, and a simple water wheel for a turbine. And a nozzle or valve, to slow the downward flow, so the water wheel won't over fill.

By the way the pressure in the up tube needs to be lower than the highest pressure in the down tube, or it won't flow through the turbine.

.

I don't think it would need to be 10 feet.

Probably 10 inches should be enough. Two or three feet might be easier to engineer.

As far as pressure differentials, I know an air lift pump works, but that is not a closed loop, so it may not work at all in a closed loop.

As I said before, I'm not endorsing or promoting these contraptions. If a 12 inch model with an air lift on one side will not circulate in a closed loop than no way a bigger device would using any kind of special goop.

Some of those PKK videos look too steady as if driven by a motor to me, but that doesn't PROVE anything.

.

Tommy wrote:zero credible concrete evidence other than your usual "it's impossible" Cannot Limit opinions.

Thanks for verifying that. Yes, Carnot violation is sufficient. No need to expose the exact scam after that.

Your mind isn't open. It is closed to and in denial of scientific methodology, data, and desire to understand.

I'm open to scientific exploration, and still waiting for a working model. Not holding my breath. Not jumping on the band wagon of poorly described scams. If scammers are not scammers, they should find it easy to provide one or more for inspection.

10', 10", either. It's just easier to get energy enough to pump air if the waterwheel is larger. It could have a large reservoir at both top and bottom. No need to be closed loop for verification. It might work if the up tube is solar heated.

Looking forward to Matt's reply. I haven't even watched the videos. Not worth the waste of bandwidth. Can't verify for or against either of you, except that you are overly arrogant. Just asking that you stick to the science, and enjoy the humor. Matt is quite a colorful engineer. You won't be privileged to that very often in your life.

.

Fool wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2024 2:11 pm .

Tommy wrote:zero credible concrete evidence other than your usual "it's impossible" Cannot Limit opinions.

Thanks for verifying that. Yes, Carnot violation is sufficient. No need to expose the exact scam after that.
...

Ignoring the REALITY of a working proof of concept prototype based only on a 200 year old THEORY that was itself based on the obsolete Caloric theory is not science, scientific or even sensible. It's biased and prejudiced "pseudoscience".

Characteristics of a pseudoscience

1) No empirical support.

Carnot Efficiency Limit - no empirical support whatsoever in 200 years.

2) Is hostile to challenges.

Real science welcomes attempts to disprove its theories.

Advocates of the Carnot limit are consistently hostile towards anyone daring to question this "LAW"

3) Pseudoscience is rigid, dogmatic and unchanging. Real science tends to advance and develop with new findings.

The Carnot Limit nonsense has remained an unverified dogmatic assertion since it's inception.never has it been modified or updated so as to incorporate or adjust to new discoveries or findings.

4) Pseudoscience is unfalsifiable.

The Carnot cycle engine cannot exist in reality. It cannot be built, so can never be tested. The claim to being the most efficient engine possible is therefore unfalsifiable. Likewise the "Carnot Limit" which applies to this non-existent fantasy engine

The Carnot fallacy ticks every box.

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-pse ... ce-2795470

This is interesting.

There is a long description in Russian. I translated. Had to be in segments as it is too long for the online translators I used.

https://youtu.be/vb3-oJ0ISyE

I won't reproduce the translation here but Bottom line was.the setup would not light an LED and the efficiency was so low, less than 1% there was no way the output of the generator could ever run the little compressor.

He said he did not think that even if he found a way to increase the efficiency of both compressor and air pump that it could ever be self sustaining, never mind running an external load.

It does look like the pump is pushing much too much air which is bubbling up all over the place, also I wonder about the DIY generator being submerged under water. Could it even operate without shorting out?

Still, it demonstrates the possibility of building a small model.

One thing I can say about the PKK demonstration is that big air tank is pre-filled from the building main air supply and this is filled while the machine is being turned manually, so the whole thing is pre-charged and loaded and has a tank full of air to keep it going.

So, with no startup loses, all the generator has to do is make up for loses between the generator and compressor. Such a loop could be apparently "self-sustaining" for a time, but might gradually wind down as loses exceed its ability to generate power.

With a standard pressure regulator, there would be no apparent slowing down if say the tank was filled to 200 PSI and the regulator was set at 10 PSI. How much pressure would be needed to put air into a water tank? Probably not very much. The thing could run until the pressure dropped below 10 PSI.

How long that could continue, I don't know.

But they show multiple lights and space heaters, and in one video even a tank of water with two heating elements. Supposedly generating 20 KW or some such very high output.

Anyway, the little model came nowhere even close to working on a level that could be self sustaining, but, I don't trust that the generator could function properly under water.

Also, the big PKK generator was geared up to run at very high RPM. Any electrical generator is more efficient at high speed and his DIY generator, besides being under water was not geared up at all and rotating very very slowly.

Just from personal experience, my little Stirling engine could not light the supplied LED it came with. When I geared up the generator, no changes to the engine, the output, I would estimate, increased about 16 times from something like .5 volts to 8 volts.

https://youtu.be/sjDE4pf1zNY

I did see it go over 8 volts when I held down the engine to prevent it from moving around, but the plug blew before I could reposition the camera.

I'm also pretty sure that engine/generator could have been geared up even more.

Another quite interesting small model.

With the mechanical air pump he said it sometimes went around by itself a few times. But the volume of air was too low.

He supplemented with another hand pump. It doesn't look like he had to do too much auxiliary hand pumping.

In the end he says he THINKS he might be able to make it self running, but that was 2 years ago, and there doesn't seem to be any follow up video.

Two strikes so far on the small models.

https://youtu.be/z3lUl18txmM

This demonstration tower is supposed to be 100 KW.
https://www.ki-tech.global/what-we-offer

So what could have been wrong with this small model to account for the difference?

I didn't see any excess bubbles.

No generator to short out.

Not much loss from the directly attached mechanical air pump.

All I can think of is that maybe heat loss from the compressed air in a tank is actually an advantage?

The air under high compression looses heat in the big air tank, so a low volume of compressed air put into the tank will re-expand in the water tank, cooling as it expands and absorbing ambient heat from the water. More output per volume of air released by more than 10 times.

200 psi / 15 psi

Water cooling of the air compressor with the tank water could recover heat of compression.

So.... If he ALMOST got the little model working... Higher compression with heat recovery... Maybe?

I haven't seen any method of heat recovery demonstrated in the KPP system though.

The bicycle pump used in the model would not have high compression, so would not expand much or take in ambient heat from the tank.

If anything, my thought would be that these contraptions would be powered via an intake of ambient heat as there is really no other viable power source.

The Flooid system makes this explicit. Cooling during compression and heat recovery are stated elements of the system.

The KPP system, theoretically, could still recover ambient heat.

The expanding gas absorbs heat from the water.

The water is chilled, the tank grows colder and absorbs heat from the ambient surroundings.

The very large surface area of the outer walls of the tank and the constant agitation of the water could make this ambient heat exchange hardly noticeable.

But, an infrared or other temperature readings should show a chilled tank

Also the system would be harder pressed to function in colder weather, just like any other heat pump.

Heat pumps operate by compression and expansion of a fluid.

So the compressed air tank functions as a kind of condenser, throwing off heat and the air bubbling up in the water tank, or the tank itself acts as an evaporator.

It's a theory anyway.

Such an abundance of ambient heat available, free for the taking, explicit "heat recovery" might not be necessary.

It's a theory anyway.

So, for the small model, just add a buffer air tank or long copper tube to serve as a condenser and add a valve to regulate air flow to the tank to function as a restriction (expansion valve).

Should be good to go.

Maybe put the condenser coil tubing right into the bottom of the tank of water for heat recovery.

An expansion valve would be necessary to restrict flow to build pressure, release heat to the water and reduce air flow into the tank

The air cooled by the tank water should probably be captured and recompressed or a heat exchanger used to cool the air going back to, or otherwise being taken in by the compressor.

Directly recirculated air would be moisture laden and might cause problems for the compressor.

Mention is made here that the air is fed into the tank through "a pressure reducing valve".

A refrigerant expansion valve feeding an evaporator is essentially a pressure reducing valve

https://youtu.be/FVG5QXvS0Oc

Confirmation?

Well, maybe but not quite. It does fit the theory though

Not sure what is meant by a "wind boiler". A funny name for a compressed air tank I suppose?

Curiously, the same video cited in the last post shows text citing "The Proell Effect".

That subject led to this paper about Maxwells Demon, Stirling Engines and how the Proell Effect results in exceeding the Carnot Limit for certain systems

https://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-ab ... edFrom=PDF

The Proell Effect: A Macroscopic Maxwell's Demon
Kenneth M. Rauen

Maxwell's Demon is a legitimate challenge to the Second Law of Thermodynamics when the “demon” is executed via the Proell effect. Thermal energy transfer according to the Kinetic Theory of Heat and Statistical Mechanics that takes place over distances greater than the mean free path of a gas circumvents the microscopic randomness that leads to macroscopic irreversibility. No information is required to sort the particles as no sorting occurs; the entire volume of gas undergoes the same transition. The Proell effect achieves quasi‐spontaneous thermal separation without sorting by the perturbation of a heterogeneous constant volume system with displacement and regeneration. The classical analysis of the constant volume process, such as found in the Stirling Cycle, is incomplete and therefore incorrect. There are extra energy flows that classical thermo does not recognize. When a working fluid is displaced across a regenerator with a temperature gradient in a constant volume system, complimentary compression and expansion work takes place that transfers energy between the regenerator and the bulk gas volumes of the hot and cold sides of the constant volume system. Heat capacity at constant pressure applies instead of heat capacity at constant volume. The resultant increase in calculated, recyclable energy allows the Carnot Limit to be exceeded in certain cycles....

The full text can be downloaded from this link:

https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/9 ... -ie-52-pdf

Link from this forum post:

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread ... post140365