Proell Effect

[matt brown]

Matt, per your latest graphics, I'm struggling to see how the hot side volume is "expanding" and reducing Tmax while its volume is shrinking graphically. The cold side is easy to visualize as its volume is expanding graphically.

In my anomaly thread, the Ian-Hall example had constant mass (m) elements which made for an easy visual where vol cc grew per m during expansion process. The point was to show "uniform" expansion rate between hot and cold space gas despite changing pressure during gas flow.

Meanwhile, in this Proell effect graphic, I used constant volume (cc) elements to save time graphing (it takes forever to line off proportional vols in Excel). So, in this Proell graphic, the m/cc varies. Look back at this graphic and notice that 1/3 of total m has moved from hot to cold space during A-B. Then notice that m/cc in cold space B-E is always 2x m/cc in hot space due to 300-600k values. Then notice that the m/cc expansion rate in hot and cold spaces are 'uniform', but in this graphic they are also 'equal' when summed per element (20% expansion per element during 20% transfer).

If m (density) was via dithered black and white printing process where m min is white and m max is black, then A and F would be a mid tone grey while cold space B would be black (m max) and hot space F would be white (m min). Then cold space gas B-F would range from black to mid grey while hot space gas A-F would range from mid grey to white.

[Fool]

.

The wavey line graphic Fool posted is from Uriei's site and is solely meant to show that for common SE, most of the gas never leaves the regenerator.

The regenerator holds almost as much as the stroke volumes. The gas is either in the regenerator and the cold space. Or the regenerator and the hot space. Never completely in the hot or cold space.

I saw that. Hence why I added, 'out of the hot space"'. Thanks for the extra information.

I believe it is an Alpha design simulation where hot and cold volumes are almost equal.

It would have helped to have included tdc for both pistons. Probably in the writeup somewhere. So much for easy.

.

[Tom Booth]

To be fair, "fool" I can see, (I think) why you drew the conclusions you did looking at that graph.

The two charts are from the same Wikipedia contributor so I would assume the "crank angle" in both charts should correlate.

So,... Just to try and figure out if all this made any sense I took some time to try to merge the two relating "crank angle" degrees with 12:00, 3:00, 6:00, 9:00 for this common alpha gif that accompanies the chart:

Alpha_Stirling-ezgif.com-speed.gif (116.29 KiB) Viewed 1301 times

So, this is the result as best I can figure, which seems to correspond pretty well with your original description.

particle_flow.jpg (422.47 KiB) Viewed 1301 times

IMO the results don't make much sense as the working fluid is the hottest "everywhere" when mostly all of the working fluid is over on the cold side and coldest "everywhere" when nearly all the working fluid is over on the hot side.

I don't know if it's possible to reconcile things by shifting or flipping the crank angle for one chart or the other or some such thing (I haven't tried) but somehow things don't add up IMO.

On the other hand, the more I look at it, for an Alpha, maybe it's about right.

At about 9:00 both pistons are fully "expanded" and at about 3:00 both pistons are near full "compression", so,.. that kind of makes sense.

Especially if the "heater" and "cooler" are on either side of the regenerator rather than in the cylinders as depicted by the gif.

[matt brown]

From a recent post on Vincent's "Constant Volume compression/expansion" thread that I transferred here since it's more appropriate.
----------------------------------------------------
Fool wrote:

The Proell Effect has two different real work processes on one side increased density, on the other decreased density. The two may tend to cancel each other. The two are not constant volume nor constant mass.

Linearly dependent equations can't be used to solve for extra variables. It a law of linear mathematics. They must be linearly independent. It just means, in this case, that only three of the equations can be used to determine the four unknown variables. Unfortunately four are necessary. Fortunately the adiabatic path equation is available to be the fourth. No I haven't worked it out so may find a problem. But so far it, to me, looks possible.

It was left for Matt to ponder, mostly.
-----------------------------------------------------

I've used minimal math to quantify this Proell effect, but thanks for all your suggestions. In my anomaly thread, I knew this math issue would challenge any quantification, but I was trying to keep stuff (1) accessible via graphics (2) reduce limited time (3) avoid mental distraction/s from major concept.

This Proell effect is an easy chase due to constant volume vs my anomaly chase with variable volume. Here's what I've been pondering of late...

(1) assuming ideal gas law, when hot space gas moves to cold space, if cold space gas leaves regen at Tmin for regen gradient, then cold gas expands adiabatically in DP cold space. Yet, according ideal gas law, adiabatic expansion has no dT during this DP expansion due to zero work. IOW this adiabatic expansion occurs akin isothermal PV values !!!

(2) interestingly, if we assume this zero work expansion in DP cold space during hot>>>cold transfer, then we already have an issue with this Proell effect since there's no zero work compression for the other half of the 'cycle' when cold space gas transfers to hot space. Yep, I'm always watching for energy balance.

(3) however, an adiabatic "free expansion" of ideal gas is far from reality vs real gas where there's little difference (in PVT values) between a working adiabatic expansion and a "work less" adiabatic expansion.

(4) in my Proell displacement graphic, I used "working" adiabatic expansion via deltaV to calc deltaT, but I didn't waste time calcing deltaP since deltaT and deltaP are proportional when comping 2 sets.

(5) I definitely need to verify/complete this 5 element FEA, then proceed to 10 FEA.

(6) Fool may have hit on something suggesting adiabatic work cold>>>hot during hot>>>cold transfer and then adiabatic work hot>>>cold during cold>>>hot transfer and that we need some work calcs to coincide these fuzzy PVT values.

(7) previously I used 300-600k 'cycle' with 10% Tswing for each space, thus 540-660k hot space and 270-330k cold space (purely esoteric and solely to elude effect). I then used ambient input to cold space when cold space was 270k and then eluded that after displacer swing (cold gas transfer to hot space) both hot and cold space T values would exceed 'static' values. I then used cold space >330k to 'power an engine' but stopped at Tdrop to 330k to coincide 'static' values (mere oscillation). However, one could also use hot space >660k to 'power an engine'.

(8) I've arrived at a simple energy balance logic where Qin ambient is upgraded from Tlow to Thigh which only violates the 2nd law, not the 1st law. It took a while gaming Q vs T, so I'm still onboard this HODL ambient engine roller coaster (in theory) but clueless as to whether this effect is practical.

(9) even if ambient input fails, this study may still provide a super-Carnot scheme akin an ambient 'assist' engine.

[matt brown]

Fool - check your PM

[Tom Booth]

Nice to see you pretending to care about this "Proell effect" subject, but I don't believe you are actually interested or sincere.

All you ever do, and you've done it again and again, is take up some subject that originated on one of my threads, throw some bogus math numbers around for a while, hem and haw about it then ... Oh well,.. Carnot wins again. You can't beat Carnot.

Ass holes.

[Fool]

.

Tom, thanks for the clock positions. And thanks very much for slowing down the animation. It helps me understand it way better..

It looks like the minimum volume is at the 4:30 position, and maximum is at the 10:30 position.

Matt, I don't think Tom understands what, "provide a super-Carnot scheme", means. FTR, it means, 'Beating the Carnot Limit'. But who am I to say. LOL

FTR means For The Record. Not Faster Than Right. He he he...

.

[Tom Booth]

.

Tom, thanks for the clock positions. And thanks very much for slowing down the animation. It helps me understand it way better..

It looks like the minimum volume is at the 4:30 position, and maximum is at the 10:30 position.

Matt, I don't think Tom understands what, "provide a super-Carnot scheme", means. FTR, it means, 'Beating the Carnot Limit'. But who am I to say. LOL

FTR means For The Record. Not Faster Than Right. He he he...

.

Yes I know Matt professes to be diligently searching for and trying to calculate, devise, "game" or engineer (by his frequent cycle modeling charts) or whatever an engine that might somehow manage to "beat Carnot"...

Often on the heals of one of my posts or topics.

Here's a thread he started, just for example:

viewtopic.php?t=5547

On which you eventually appeared as "fool".

So I post a video. Several videos actually. Maybe a dozen by now of pretty ordinary or slightly modified model Stirling engines running quite happily while "rejecting" no "waste heat" in complete contradiction of the Carnot fallacious assumption that virtually all the heat must pass through the engine and out the other side to the "cold reservoir".

Many of my experiments have demonstrated this so-called "Proell effect". Sub-ambient cooling

So, my work, experiments, videos etc he (Matt Brown) continues to ridicule, criticize and dismiss outright while he continues on searching for the illusive, impossible, "holy grale".

The two of you have been working hand in hand like a "good cop/bad cop" team.

Matt pretends sympathy for my supposed struggle for "free energy". You just ridicule my videos etc. outright. In the end it all amounts to the same thing. Trying to make nothing out of clear experimental results that were always completely objective

I was never out to "prove" one view or one outcome over any other. I was just curious to find out who was correct about how heat engines actually work.

I came across two conflicting theories.

Carnot claimed the heat flows through an engine from hot to cold like water flows through a mill wheel from high to low.

That made good sense to me.

Nikola Tesla said that heat was just energy and is converted so does not necessarily pass through the engine as heat but goes in as heat and back out in other forms.

That made sense to me too.

But which is/was correct?

Then we also have the modern "Carnot Limit" formula that suggests a kind of compromise where most of the heat passes through and only some of the heat (usually very little) is converted.

So I searched the entire history of thermodynamics for some experiment(s) that conclusively settled the question, read a lot of books, scoured the internet, spent a lot of time at the library.

For some 200 years it appeared that there was nothing. The question was never resolved experimentally at all.

Well when, where and by whom and how was this "Carnot limit" compromise determined to be true?

Nothing there either.

So out of necessity, I devised some very cheap and simple experiments I could run myself with model Stirling engines that could help settle the question in my own mind and provide some answers.

There is my whole YouTube channel full of such video recorded experiments.

Is Matt interested at all in replicating any such experiment?

It doesn't seem so

I don't need Matt or you to validate anything.with modeling or mathematics.

My experiments and the results stand on their own. Your modeling and/or math does not and cannot invalidate experimental results.

All either of you do is all these modeling charts and mathematical calculations while heaping ridicule and insults on me and my efforts to simply satisfy my own curiosity. Neither of you cares to look at the actual experimental results or run any experiments of your own.

I don't think it's all that surprising that out of all the conflicting theories the experimental evidence indicates that Tesla was right

Heat is only energy that can be completely converted into other forms so than none is "rejected" in the form of "heat".

It is very simply and easily proven and demonstrated by simple experiments that anyone can do themselves at their kitchen table as I have done

But all you guys can do is obsess over Tom Booth and continue with your dismissals and ridicule.

Personally, I'm sick of it

Get lost.

You two can go back to whatever hole you crawled out of. As far as I'm concerned the both of you are nothing but useless trolls who only wish they had thought of it first.

Then there is VincentG who complains that I'm not standing still or am moving too fast.

I'm not waiting for you numbskulls to get your head out of your asses and catch up with experiments I completed years ago.

The "Tower of Power" is not something new VincentG, it's just an application

That is what comes after theorizing, testing and experimenting

First you get your experimental results, then you actually do something with practical application.

Turns out others have already been down the same road. You all dismiss and ridicule that as well.

Eat my dust.

Carry on with your obsessing, ridicule, dismissals, or whatever you choose to do, it is mostly irrelevant IMO.

But when you misrepresent me, my experiments, my views, goals, intentions etc. you force me to step in and correct the record.

You ass holes have called me every name in the book, now you expect me to play nice?

Eat shit ass holes

[Fool]

.

Tommy, you attack goes along the line of reasoning that, if you can't tell any good jokes make up for it by telling lots of really bad jokes.

Swamping all the threads with your ludicrous erroneous psychobabble is insipid useless pusillanimous juvinal behavior.

.

[Tom Booth]

.

Tommy, you attack goes along the line of reasoning that, if you can't tell any good jokes make up for it by telling lots of really bad jokes.

Swamping all the threads with your ludicrous erroneous psychobabble is insipid useless pusillanimous juvinal behavior.

.

Look in the mirror Troll.

[Fool]

.

You are ending a couple decades of striving to be the top dog here, all to drive yourself and your character into the absolute dirt. What a narcissist.

You bring in scams. Fill the pages of everyone's threads with your obnoxious battle against science and thermodynamics. Good luck with that. You provide no alternate methods of calculation. No one will follow a zero or a 'i don't know, prove me wrong zelot.'

I'm well aware of my four fingers pointing back with one pointing out. You are the one afraid to acknowledge your own miserable refection. Typical of a narcissist. Fall in love with your own reflection in a pool of water and drown falling in to kiss it. I've seen your fear. Ccan't help. You are your own worst enemy.

Did your wife leave you, and since you are now miserable you figure everyone else here should be that way too, so lash out at everyone, even when they are in your side. Don't hold back.

You are miserable and know it. I send a hug. Cheer up. Be happy. Smile.

.

[Tom Booth]

.

You are ending a couple decades of striving to be the top dog here,

I have strived to do no such thing, liar.

I have started only a relatively few threads over the decade+ I've been on the forum. I do not strive to make those topics popular. I'm actually quite relieved when some dick head such as yourself is not spewing accusations and lies about me that I'm forced to rebuttal.

Your constant trolling on my threads is what bumps them. Please stop you shit head and get lost.

Let this forum die in peace.

[Fool]

.

You are the only non adult mouth piece here. Grow up.

.

[Fool]

Well, here is a portion of Matt's reference:

Have either of you actually read it?

Proell_effect_excerpt.jpg

Personally I don't agree with #3 that heat can somehow be used over and over.

Once the heat is converted to "work" and goes out as electricity, dispersed through the grid or whatever?

That ambient heat can be utilized 1 time and converted to work, maybe, but how do you recover and reuse heat that is now gone and flowing through wires as electricity, or on its way to outer space as light/radiation etc?

Let's get this straight. You are proposing converting some ambient heat to electricity, zero heat rejection, sending it out on a wire where it gets used for heat, light, or motoring, which converts it back into ambient heat? I don't see how that isn't proposing perpetual motion.

The second law was drawn up specifically because that has never been observed. Do you have any examples contrary to the second law?