Stirlingengineforum.com

So? Were you banned from the 'sciforums', or just choosing to not comment? I don't know. Being quiet is not like you.

Fool wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2024 3:38 am So? Were you banned from the 'sciforums', or just choosing to not comment? I don't know. Being quiet is not like you.

When it became clear there would be no response relevant to the topic:

https://www.sciforums.com/threads/origi ... th.166462/

I quit wasting time there and simply have not been back after my last post.

I see now the only thing added has been your references to your own number juggling, so-called "derivations" which we have already been over here ad nauseum, and which are of no historical (or other) importance.

The earliest actual reference to the equation I've been able to locate has been US government "approved" textbooks from the mid 1970's onward.

You asked for verifications.

Fool wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2024 1:58 pm You asked for verifications.

"how it was verified?"

Your personal musings and number juggling you just dreamt up yesterday is of no historical value or importance.

Fool wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2024 1:58 pm You asked for verifications.

"how it was verified?"

Your personal musings and number juggling you just dreamt up yesterday is of no historical value or importance.


As exchemist pointed out, it could not have originated with Carnot as the Kelvin scale did not exist in Carnot's lifetime, so it has been falsely attributed to Carnot.

The question remains then, where exactly did it originate and how was it empirically verified or who (originally) sanctioned it as valid, accepted science so that it has become a part of our educational curriculum.

And I asked for (historical) references.

I'm not interested in opinions generated off the top of anyone's head.

Title of thread:

"Origin and verification of e=(Th-Tc)/Th "

Sorry if I misunderstood your limitations to the word 'verification'.

Fool wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2024 10:59 pm Title of thread:

"Origin and verification of e=(Th-Tc)/Th "

Sorry if I misunderstood your limitations to the word 'verification'.

OK, so, this so-called "Science" was first verified by "fool" around December 2023 ?

viewtopic.php?p=21038#p21038

So nothing before that?

Kind of like the guy in the videos posted by VincentG on the history of the second law.

No confirmation of the 2nd Law in all of its history, for the past 200 years, he says, until now, in my new book!!!

Hmmm .. why am I skeptical?

No. As been said before, Kelvin and Clausius, gave the first inklings of the derivations of the second law, not called the second law until much later. It wasn't until the 1940's, when statistical analysis became better known, that nailed the coffin shut on any leftover doubt that there would be a way around the second law. I'm not a historian, nor a statistician, but the following Wikipedia link might be an interesting read for you, if you haven't already read it. Click on some of the additional links too.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin ... modynamics


Also:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius_theorem

I would perceive that as, history recognizing his input and formulation. I think it is very similar to what is presented in modern textbooks. I'm going by memory, not always a good thing, so please check that thought for yourselves.

Students are required, to reason it out, and do empirical lab work, depending on what area of engineering they are more interested in. I did not take that lab. Had plenty of others, so the head of the department waved three because I already took plenty of similar lab courses. Lab courses are more for learning lab practices than verifying specific engineering principals. I did see students making measurements on a working see through Stirling Engine.

Seeing it running I asked them how it worked. Their description wasn't quite correct. I recognized that it didn't make sense, but couldn't comment. On my own research much later I learned, from a Senft book, their simple principle. It appears that Senft has accepted the second law as verified science, and uses it. If it's good enough for he, it is good enough for me. I think we can rely on his judgement.

That doesn't mean we should accept it. I have challenged other laws, researched and studied their conception, and have seen and repeated derivations of the second law, so now I don't need to chase rainbows yet again, an do my own experiments. I do watch others. You never know, but have to choose your battles. Watching other perform that battle, as you have, is acceptable enough for my pursuits.

I only want to present the science correctly. I can't accept people baselessly bashing science because of lack of proper formulations.

.

You can of course do as you please and accept unsubstantiated opinion.

In the real world an engine has to actually run and not just theoretically, on paper or a computer simulation but in fact.

Start giving measured work output and consumed fuel data and we'll start listening to you.

Fool wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2024 7:03 am Start giving measured work output and consumed fuel data and we'll start listening to you.

Who the hell is "we"?

Is "fool" more than one person, or some sort of representative?

You certainly don't represent every member here.

As for you "fool" and your ilk, I could care less. I'm not here for accolades.

As far as I'm concerned in a heat engine "consumed fuel" can be measured in at least two ways.

One way is to measure the "waste heat".

If there is no waste heat then quite obviously whatever heat entered the engine as "fuel" was "consumed".

Exact quantities are of little or no importance for my particular purposes. Zero waste heat is zero.

Obviously a running engine is taking in and "consuming" some heat, if it is running at all, and even if it isn't running it will still be taking in heat if there is heat available.

I really do not care if you agree with my methods or my opinions or conclusions or if you "listen" or not, or if anyone does.

I just feel it is my duty and obligation to report the facts. The results of my experiments, as thoroughly and objectively as I can.

I do recognize I may have some unconscious bias. I don't think so, as I'm only interested in the truth of the matter. I'm not trying to "prove" any pet theory or preconceived supposed "Law" or supposedly "established principle".

As I've said many times, if you don't like my approach or my method, do your own experiments.

I don't give a hoot about you or your experiments. But your opinions here are atrocious.