Sippy Bird Experiments.

[Tom Booth]

I think you need to learn more about "molecular change", molecular switch", "molecular bonding", and "evolution.

Helium has no/zero molecular change, or switch, over a range of larger than, 50 Kelvin and below, to and above, 1000 Kelvin. A Stirling engine will run just fine, well within that range. Proving no molecular change is needed for operation of a Stirling engine.

Again, as usual, you take my musings out of context.

I said "

such things as...

molecular bonding"

I think hydrogen bonding may very well enter into the picture where atmospheric humidity is involved, and in "wet" thermoacoustic type engines. The steam in a 55 gallon drum experiment, but also "such things" might, or would likely mostly include molecular attraction and repulsion of any or all types generally.

Sure, heating and cooling causes expansion and/or contraction.

Classical thermodynamics does not generally account for molecular attraction and repulsion generally, and is particularly lost when it comes to something involving expansion that results from cooling, or "work" force that might result from molecular attraction.

You, Matt and others often assert that there is no molecular attraction in any gas or in a hot air engine, but physics and chemistry generally say otherwise. "Of course gas molecules have attraction and repulsion" as I recall a statement from one video I posted, loosely paraphrased.

Anyway, the cause behind the cause.

So called "heat" is considered THE cause, the primary or even the only cause or source of power generation, ultimately, for a "heat" engine.

But there is basically no such thing as "heat" but merely motion.

What actually causes motion? Certainly not "heat" which doesn't actually exist. What does exist? The particles and their various interactions; attraction, repulsion, bonding and so forth

In this video there is a lot of talk about attraction, "mutual attraction" etc.

https://youtu.be/0kfcigx-AUc

The video is about "bonding" but before and after bonding there is attraction and repulsion.

Attraction and repulsion between particles is, presumably, REAL. Heat is not anything. Or what exactly does it consist of?

Conventional or classical thermodynamics is obsolete and mostly just keeps its head in the sand ignoring reality and modern advances in understanding.

It's a "science" of something that doesn't actually exist or even consistently behave as supposed.

Example: adding heat does not always cause expansion. Sometimes cooling does, and sometimes "contraction" can do substantial "work". Did Carnot, Kelvin or any of the other "Fathers of thermodynamics" consider or factor in this observable fact?

Here at the start of this video, removing heat by cooling is demonstrated to sheer a large cast iron pin.

https://youtu.be/EkQ2886Sxpg

Is that, or does that in some way involve the conversion of "heat" into "work"?

True, initially heat was added, but I think the same effect would result from cooling from ambient alone, if the cooling were deeper, using dry ice or liquid nitrogen or something.

The essential thing IMO is that the objects, whatever they may be exist in a state of equilibrium with the environment and with each other. Heating and cooling disturb that equilibrium. "Work" then, can be extracted as there is a natural return to a state of equilibrium after a disturbance.

Carnot called this a return in equilibrium to the "Caloric" or a "restoration" or some such phraseology I don't recall exactly.

"Getting movement in steam engines is always accompanied by one circumstance to which we should pay attention. This circumstance is the restoration of caloric balance, that is, the transition the heat from the body with a higher temperature, to another, where it is below .. . The appearance of the driving force in steam engines is going not due to loss of the heat, but due to transition from hot to cold. There is a restoration of its balance - balance, which was initiated some reason, the chemical action as burning, or something else. We see that this principle applies to all vehicles powered by heat.

According to this principle, it is not enough to create the heat to cause a driving force: you still get the cold; without it the heat would be unnecessary. "

The quote seems a bit garbled, taken 2nd hand from here:

https://kpi.ua/en/karno

But of course, there is no such thing as "Caloric" and therefore no such thing as the "restoration of Caloric balance". But there is the balance of molecular attraction and repulsion, which for some reason is often largely ignored, or denied.

Gas or air molecules in the atmosphere and/or within and outside a hot air engine are naturally in a state of equilibrium until disturbed by heating OR cooling.

So expansion and/or CONTRACTION of a gas will produce a force that can power an engine as nature goes about restoring the equilibrium.

In other words, a Stirling engine is an oscillator, as previously suggested.

[Fool]

I get the impression "fool" on this forum is not an individual but exhibits a number of rather distinct and varied personalities, attitudes and opinions, often contradicting one another.

The various staff over on the science forum from which I was unjustly banned perhaps? Too curious and intrigued or insulted and annoyed by my experiments and criticisms to simply lurk in silence, but some more open minded and more intelligent and rational than others. Some humble, receptive and even appreciative, some hostile, vengeful and irrational.

The only person I've seen be, hostile, vengeful and irrational, is you Tom. Most people dealing with you have been very patient.

I am one person. You accusations are nothing more than libelous opinions. I suspect they are distasteful to most posters. I find them laughable.

[Fool]

You do not understand escape velocity. Molecular bonding is overpowered by velocity.

.

[Fool]

A Stirling engine with a crankshaft oscillates, but it is not an oscillator. It is a crank driven kinematic almost but not quite harmonic motion from rotation device.

An oscillator is a spring, mass, damper, system.

.

[Tom Booth]

A Stirling engine with a crankshaft oscillates, but it is not an oscillator. It is a crank driven kinematic almost but not quite harmonic motion from rotation device.

An oscillator is a spring, mass, damper, system.

.

The gas, the thing moving away from a state of equilibrium and back is what is oscillating, not the crankshaft.

Moron.

[Tom Booth]

You do not understand escape velocity. Molecular bonding is overpowered by velocity.

You apparently still do not understand simple phrases like "such things as..."

I'm not getting into another debate about the existence of molecular attraction and repulsion in gases, that's already been addressed at length previously.

[Fool]

And it still doesn't support gas contraction. Gas always pushes. No such thing as negative absolute pressure.

[Tom Booth]

Now you want to play the "open" vs. "closed" vs "isolated" whatever system game.

"Game"? The words used in science get very specific definitions. Using them around scientists allows faster, clearer, and better discussions. Seeing arguments out on web sites by laymen, hardly counts as definitive. One of the reasons science is so meticulous is that definitions need to be given to be sure scientists understand the way terms are being used in the way they already know they are defined, plus any slight subtle important differences. Lots of boring definitions.....

Blah blah blah...

And does the 2nd Law apply to only a closed, only an isolated, or to all systems.

It applies to cyclic heat engines. It is a thermodynamic model of cyclic processes. It is concerned with the relationship between, efficiency, heat, work, and temperature. I would guess that would make it available for modeling any closed but not isolated system. With proper modeling it could possibly be used for open systems, or multiple systems.

.

What happened to precise scientific terminology all of a sudden?

You guess???

With proper modeling? Multiple systems? "possibly"???

Sounds rather vague, open ended, subject to argument and debate, and not very precise at all. Guesswork and "possibly" don't seem too precise and well defined so everybody knows what everybody is talking about to me.

[Tom Booth]

Even Tesla concluded in the end that if successful it could produce relatively little power output, but IMO, even that would be fine for many purposes, such as supplying power to a remote cabin to power a few lights and a radio, which pretty much describes my situation at the time I became interested in it.

So Tesla admitted it won't work, at least not well. You have a desire for lots of power. You won't get that from your indoor wood stove unless it overheated you and your cabin. Maybe you can get it to work. You have Carnot and Clausius working against your Tesla.

However, you may have better luck with an outside very hot firebox running a high temperature Stirling and channeling exhaust chimney heat into your cabin as needed. It would need to be a lot bigger fire, consuming a lot more wood and much hotter.

A few lights and a radio are "lots of power".

Are you sure you are not an AI chat bot?

Before you related molecular bonding to "evolution" and other apparent biology related subjects. Bots aren't very bright when it comes to contextual definitions.

viewtopic.php?p=25428#p25428

I'd be interested to know what you think "evolution" has to do with heat engines

[Tom Booth]

Anyway, what's it to you?

Why such rabbid, fanatical opposition to my chosen hobby?

I'm simply curious.

You and others of your ilk act as though if the drinking Bird or something similar were scaled up a bit the world would come to an end and all of science would fall flat so anyone contemplating making any such attempt must be stopped at all cost.

Your a fucking lunatic.

I am not as bad as you make me out to be. If your hobby were making and testing heat engines it would be excellent. Your hobbies appear to be wide spread and many are interesting.

What I find objectionable is your abrasive, and arrogant response to being questioned. I came here to add classical thermodynamics to this site and learn some in the process. I would not have known about you being kicked off from any other websites except for your discourse here. You practically invited me to join one other site, and dared me to join another that I didn't join.

I strive really hard to keep this civil, and to only speak of how thermodynamics really works. Sometimes you open the door for posts like this, apparently out of your own insecurities.

If you were secure in your Carnot bashing, you would not be upset with the thought of measuring an indicator diagram, or dynamometer power out. Or me pointing out you will get 0.010 Watts with 80 Watts input. Or calmly pointing out the indicator or dynamometer data that shows I'm wrong. Perhaps one day you will just decide to grow up.

.

Your a fucking lunatic stalker that when I left this forum for a while, mostly due to spam and the apparent absence of a moderator, you apparently hunted the internet and found me on a fairly obscure little "free energy" forum, lifted something I said there regarding the "sippy bird" and apparently have nothing better to do than critique what I said on another forum

Apparently you have no purpose here on this forum, or no purpose in life at all other than to harass "Tom Booth".

I think you're likely a dangerous psychopath, if even human at all.

The last thing I would do is invite YOU anywhere. My only hope is if I'm rude and insulting enough towards you, possibly you will go away and leave me be.

[Fool]

You, Matt and others often assert that there is no molecular attraction in any gas or in a hot air engine, but physics and chemistry generally say otherwise. "Of course gas molecules have attraction and repulsion" as I recall a statement from one video I posted, loosely paraphrased.

It is hard to explain thermodynamics to you because you are always flying off on these tangents and accusations. Matt, others, and I, all know that the attraction of a gas molecule with another gas molecule causes the temperature and pressure at which a substance boils. Above that boiling point temperature, and, below that boiling point pressure, the speed of the molecules relative to each other is sufficient to escape that attraction. Once they've escaped that attraction, the transfer of energy is modeled by elastic collisions, bounce. It produces a non zero positive pressure. We also know that pressure is caused by constraining a gas in a finite volume, this includes the constraint caused by gravity.

Remember, compression and expansion are a result of changing that volume, not by adding or subtracting heat. Adding and subtracting heat without volume change, just changes the pressure and temperature. Allowing the pressure to change the volume depends greatly on the battle of internal verses external forces such as pressures or crankshafts, etc.

In fact at least some materials sublime, such as water. That means they have a positive gas or vapor pressure below the temperature and pressure that they melt. In other words, ice, a solid, has a positive pressure rather than a pure vacuum. Here is a link containing a table of gas pressures and temperatures for ice. It is a non zero positive very small value for all data given, even down to -80 C.

https://www.engineersedge.com/thermodyn ... _15686.htm

There is no such thing as gas contraction. Pressure is above zero and always pushes on a piston regardless of pressure, temperature, volume, and speed of piston. Matt, others, and I, are correct. Gas always pushes. Contraction is wrong.

I'm sure people are getting tired of you scrambling that scientific point. GAC41IYL. Stop the lies. Get it straight. Quantum effects support the laws of physics, thermodynamics, and mathematics.

Your theories, accusations, and cursing, are failing.

This Sippy Bird thread, for many scientists, was sufficient when evaporation was described as an open process. The device receives and releases energy to an outside temperature difference. It produces little work. It doesn't scale up very well. It won't light your lights. It demonstrates that Tesla is wrong, and Carnot is right. (Depending, of course, on how you define 'is'. LOL). It is a temperature difference engine powered by two atmospheric energy transfers, one is at a higher temperature than the other. It is not self powered. It is not powered by one source of heat or temperature.

I'd like to see an attempt to scale one up. Maybe to quart jar sized bulbs and a dozen tubes interconnecting them for more mass lifting. It still needs to remain only a few inches tall, when working from evaporative cooling. It could be taller if a higher temperature difference is maintained.

Oh yeah, dichloromethane can deplete ozone, but not as badly as other solvents, and it has a 1/2 year half life.

.

[Fool]

The last thing I would do is invite YOU anywhere. My only hope is if I'm rude and insulting enough towards you, possibly you will go away and leave me be.

Liars like you deserve someone like me constantly setting you straight so other readers don't need to. Besides you've had more fun debating me than any other poster. The fact that you proceed to other forums with your fraudulent posts is nothing more than a smear campaign.

The fact that I didn't join the free energy site nor mention it by name here, shows I have restraint.

The fact that you resort to cursing shows you don't. This is a sign of immaturity, insecurity, and lack of science.

Improve your lab practices. Stop your baseless and fraudulent posting. Listen to your peers. Listen especially to those that point out your errors, it might not be them. Listen especially to scientifically based theory, it is built up from lots and lots of corroborating data and attempts to disprove it. Do not discard it before you understand it, as you frequently and f.audulently do.

P.S., It's not working.

.

[Tom Booth]

...

This Sippy Bird..... It doesn't scale up.
....demonstrates that Tesla is wrong, and Carnot is right.

I'd like to see an attempt to scale one up. Maybe to quart jar sized bulbs and a dozen tubes interconnecting them for more mass lifting. It still needs to remain only a few inches tall, ....

https://youtu.be/gZ-zeRCUicw

Not a very practical design, but quite obviously you are wrong.

[Tom Booth]

What I have a problem with is some prevalent modern interpretations of the so-called "Carnot Limit" mathematical formula and how it is applied, which reduces the mostly common sense 1st and 2nd Law to a ridiculous and unrealistic restriction based on the temperature difference, interpreted in such a way as to change the unreachable limit from 100% maximum efficiency to a merger 10 or 20% in many instances, particularly in the case of LTD type Stirling engines of obviously very high, near 100% efficiency.

That is Tom Booth having a problem with the second law of thermodynamics. 99.999 essentially is 100%. No one has ever come close to that. Not even you. A simple dynamometer measurement would convince you of that. Your thought that you are self cooling, as Tesla, would be found to be 5% or even less.

And the second law only allows the thermodynamic efficiency to be 99% or so with appropriate temperature values. Says nothing of mechanical inefficiencies. Mechanical inefficiencies get added to the thermodynamic inefficiencies. That is demonstrated in the book "The History of The Heat Engine".

.

As said before, "efficiency" is a term with various different applications, meanings and definitions. I've never gotten a clear answer about what "efficiency" the so-called Carnot Limit equation uses, or is supposed to represent, which comes in handy for you 2nd Law advocates who can then change the definition willy nilly to suit your argument at any given time

Here you are talking about "useful" work output, not what I'm talking about which is the basic conversion of heat into mechanical motion, which does not necessarily produce any useable or measurable "useful" work other than overcoming the inertia and friction involved in running an engine no-load.

If there is no "waste heat" at the "sink" or cold plate then the conversion of heat into "other forms of energy" is 100% of more.

"More" does not mean violating conservation of energy or "over unity". It means some of the "work" output can be used to run a heat pump to MOVE heat into the engine at a COP >1. That is NOT a violation of conservation of energy.

"Other forms of energy" could include friction, vibration, noise, air resistance, etc. none of which are useful, but none of which necessarily dump heat into the "sink" or over to the cold side

All the energy derived from heat in a heat engine will eventually return to the environment, so, by that reconning ALL the heat is returned to the "cold reservoir" eventually, so by that reconning ALL engines have zero efficiency. All the heat/energy returns to the environment eventually in one form or another, "useful" or not.

[Tom Booth]

As usual, "fool" you spout your baseless, untested, unproven theory and opinion as if it were proven fact.

Par for the course, since that is exactly what has been done with the so-called "Carnot Limit" BS theory for the past century.

No proof, no testing, not entirely "unfalsifiable" but it's unfalsifiability is often used as an excuse for why it cannot be tested or demonstrated, because the most fabulous and perfect "Carnot engine" is impossible to actually build for any real testing or comparison.

But, as shown by my many experiments, it IS in fact, falsifiable, and has been demonstrated to be FALSE in several different ways.

Insulating the sink does not stop the engine by stopping the "flow" of heat. No measurable heat at the sink. etc.

Here are a few more photos and videos demonstrating that "fools" opinions are worthless egoistic nonsense.

https://youtu.be/c3wyfGxQI4o

The website these videos were posted on no longer exists, and the videos were in a format no longer generally supported, so I took some time to download them from the internet archive and convert them to a format that could be uploaded to YouTube.