Stirlingengineforum.com

.

Moving this above the vile spam posts.

.

Fool wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 9:21 am .

Moving this above the vile spam posts.

.

It's debatable which is more "vile". You or the spam. Personally I prefer the spam.

.

You are such a liar. And a perpetrator of evil. I wish you well far away from me and hope your mind heals someday. What do you hope to accomplish by encouraging sacks like those spammers that obviously have no moral value or benefit. To me you are spreading fraudulent lies about thermodynamics. Both your knowledge and your encouragement are evil.


.

Fool wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 12:06 pm .

You are such a liar. And a perpetrator of evil. I wish you well far away from me and hope your mind heals someday.

.

LOL...

I'm quite serious.

The spam is relatively innocuous and mainly keeps to its own threads so is easily avoided or ignored.

You on the other hand insist on invading other people's discussions, refuse to take a hint, refuse to "agree to disagree" or "live and let live" and insist on trying to cram your opinions down everyone else's gullet like it or not.

You continue to ruin what little there is left of this forum moreso than the relatively harmless spam posting

.

I keep explaining classical theory correctly. You keep muddling it up. You mix in cursing and banter. You are abrasive.

There is nothing wrong with correcting a liar, or ignorance. You just take offense with it and lash out immaturely. Look in a mirror. Agreeing to disagree is agreeing to be ignorant.

I'm the more correct one here. You are the one trying poorly to convince people of left field, Tom Booth conspiracy garbage. One day you may understand how much more data you need to even begin to support your unsupportable position. Basically you are wrong so far and ignoring all peer review. And you are belligerent to boot.

The simplest thing you could learn out of this is, that gasses always push. Simple tests will
Show that. Refusing to not consider them is ignorance by choice. Your cognitive dissonance is your biggest problem. Failure to drop dogmatic belief in the face of undeniable facts. I at least acknowledge your data. You are completely blind.

Not my problem. Nor is the data and logic I present a problem.

Gasses always pushing is an observable fact. Look for it. Otherwise, put forth the vacuum chamber tests to the contrary. Or stop lying.

.

.

Fool wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 2:12 pm .

I keep explaining classical theory correctly. You keep muddling it up. You mix in cursing and banter. You are abrasive.

There is nothing wrong with correcting a liar, or ignorance. You just take offense with it and lash out immaturely. Look in a mirror. Agreeing to disagree is agreeing to be ignorant.

I'm the more correct one here. You are the one trying poorly to convince people of left field, Tom Booth conspiracy garbage. One day you may understand how much more data you need to even begin to support your unsupportable position. Basically you are wrong so far and ignoring all peer review. And you are belligerent to boot.

The simplest thing you could learn out of this is, that gasses always push. Simple tests will
Show that. Refusing to not consider them is ignorance by choice. Your cognitive dissonance is your biggest problem. Failure to drop dogmatic belief in the face of undeniable facts. I at least acknowledge your data. You are completely blind.

Not my problem. Nor is the data and logic I present a problem.

Gasses always pushing is an observable fact. Look for it. Otherwise, put forth the vacuum chamber tests to the contrary. Or stop lying.

I already studied thermodynamics many years ago. Obviously in more depth than your elementary level 1820's obsolete theory.

Nobody needs or wants your obsessive "gasses always push" obsolete nonsensical BS that can't stand up to the most casual kitchen table experiments.

All you are doing is interfering with progress getting on your high horse because you and your antiquated theories are no longer relevant.

Your nothing but a nuisance.

Fool wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 2:12 pm
I keep explaining classical theory correctly...

There is nothing wrong with correcting a liar, or ignorance... Agreeing to disagree is agreeing to be ignorant.

I'm the more correct one here....

The simplest thing you could learn out of this is,...

etc. etc.
.

Your empty hubris, incurable priggishness and utter lack of respect for others makes you a social pariah and a psychopath.

See a psychiatrist.

.

More caustic talk. BFHTD.

.

.

This thread of Tom's needs to be above the spam.

.

Fool wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 3:11 am .

This thread of Tom's needs to be above the spam.

Odd, since you have a propensity for complaining my threads are dominating too much of the forum.

This topic should go to the "trash" bin.

Your ridiculous mathematical mumbo-jumbo trying to bring back 1820's Caloric theory has been thoroughly discredited and proven fallacious. Give it up. This topic will die with the forum. Have you forgotten your own sentiment?

If this website vanishes on the first of 2025, it will be a well deserved goodbye

viewtopic.php?p=26622#p26622

.

Tommy you are the only one being up caloric theory.

.

Fool wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 9:00 pm .

Tommy you are the only one being up caloric theory.

.

Your supposed mathematical "derivation" makes no sense outside of caloric theory. You've also been advocating for it practically from the time you showed up here, we've been through this before.

You advocate for the "Carnot efficiency limit" which has no basis outside of caloric theory. You probably have a shrine to the caloric theory you bow down to at night before bed.

You're the personification of caloric theory. It oozes from you pores.

.

Original Caloric theory is destroyed by conservation of energy. The Carnot limit requires conservation of energy.

Your bashing Carnot denies conservation of energy, opening up the quack idea of free energy. You seem to be unable to calculate that. Your math skills stink.

.

Fool wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 11:46 pm .

Original Caloric theory is destroyed by conservation of energy. The Carnot limit requires conservation of energy.

Your bashing Carnot denies conservation of energy, opening up the quack idea of free energy. You seem to be unable to calculate that. Your math skills stink.

.

The Carnot limit ignores conservation of energy. You're just too bad at math and simple logic to realize it.

You think heat can be converted to work and still be"rejected" to a "cold reservoir".

Conservation of energy doesn't work that way.

The "Carnot limit" is bogus. Illogical and really just plain silly.

.

No. Energy moves into an engine, some comes out as work, some as heat. Perfect efficiency is impossible. Breaking the Carnot limit is impossible.

Conservation of energy only works one way. It is conserved, all the energy coming out must equal all the energy going in minus the energy stored. Regardless of the forms. We can model an engine as if no energy is stored, not that we have to.

Flywheels store energy. Buffer pressures store energy.

Your opinion on this "is bogus. Illogical and really just plain silly."

.