Stirlingengineforum.com

I say my opinion is "objective" or "unbiased" because I didn't know or care anything about all this Carnot/Kelvin/Tesla Second Law/"Carnot" limit controversy.

But I've always been good at diagnosing engine problems. I've been doing it since I was a kid. Even as a little boy of maybe 7 or 8 I used to take things apart and repair them. Kitchen appliances and things.

To me it's all just a controversy between "scientists" from 100+ years ago I'm disinterested in other than it came up in the course of trying to "FIX" whatever it is that's apparently wrong with Stirling engines.

That is. I just set out to build a Stirling engine that's better than what's available. Which shouldn't be too hard really, since nothing much is available at all.

I don't care WHO's right or wrong, I just need facts and correct information.

I don't even like Tesla. His idea people are automatons is creepy and his views on selective breeding of humans pretty unethical I'd say, but a theory is a theory, it's either right or wrong no matter the character.

Looking objectively into the history of the controversy it looked to me like nothing had really ever been settled.

Nobody had ever done any damn experiments, it was all just philosophical arguments and theories nobody had ever actually put to the test with any real engines, in particular the type of engines I'm mainly interested in.

So I'm doing my own experiments to get my own answers.

The way it looks to me now is this so-called "Carnot Limit" was probably made up and advocated as something that should be put into the educational curriculum because it was good for the existing energy monopolies as a means of thwarting competition and control the market.

You want to suppress something?

Say it violates the "Carnot Limit".

Demonize the inventor. Make them out to be slimy con artists, then steal their business and their invention and put them away in prison or a funny farm for being "crazy" thinking they can violate the Carnot Limit.

Works on everything, because the Carnot limit is so ridiculously low, most of the machinery we already have violates the Carnot limit. You name it, it violates the Carnot limit.

Want to put something on the market to compete with the powers that be?

You can be sure it violates the Carnot limit and that will be used as an excuse to persecute the inventor and squash his designs.

Fool wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 3:05 pm I think you need to look up the etymology of "gas lighting".

The only one trying to convince people that they are 'silly, ludicrous, crazy, lying,' is you. Your so called, "contradict actual empirical observations and measurements", is only a temperature anomaly. Let's look into it. Science, education, and mathematics denial, is gas lighting. Correctly using theory, is science.

The whole purpose of empirical testing is to develop a reliable theory. The whole purpose of a theory, is for reliable prediction of empirical processes, to make observations more reliable.

.

I don't think you understand what gaslighting is.

Even your definition of gaslighting is gaslighting.

As if the evidence of your own eyes is unreliable.

Empirical testing and experimental results are subordinate to fools number juggling.

Your self-deluded, like one guy posted on one of the science forums that he doesn't believe the drinking Bird toy is real because it would be a violation of the second law.

Matt Brown wrote:Oddly, someone mentions that the Carnot limit can be derived from the ideal gas law, but no one followed this up, instead diverting to the Clausius mumbo-jumbo.

From the other web site.

exchemist wrote:The point you still have not understood is that the Carnot cycle efficiency limit is a direct consequence of the Gas Laws. Nobody ever argues that those are wrong - apart from well understood deviations from ideal behaviour due to chemical effects. So why do we get people claiming the Carnot efficiency limit may be wrong? The only answer can be they have not followed the derivation from the Gas Laws, which is in every 6th form physics textbook.

In my humble opinion, it can be derived from the ideal gas laws, plus, heat capacity laws, plus, the full cycle requirement, plus, the first law energy conservation. It also completely blows away caloric theory, as the heat out is less than the heat in, instant destruction of conservation of caloric.

Here is my derivation of Carnot equivalence for the Ideal Stirling Engine Cycle the ideal gas law has its footprint in it :

Fool wrote:Work Energy coming out of the engine is positive.

Heat energy going in is positive.

Vt = Volume top dead center.
Vb = Volume bottom dead center.
M Mass of the working gas.
R gas constant for working gas
ln() = Natural log function.
Th and Tc Temperatures hot an cold
W12 work for each process, respectively. Four total. 2 isothermal. Two constant volume.
Q12, Heat transfered for each of four process respectively.

The following is for the ideal Stirling Cycle as depicted in the above graphic.

W12 = M•R•Th•ln(Vb/Vt) positive because work is coming out.
W23 = 0. Zero volume change.
W34 = M•R•Tc•ln(Vt/Vb) negative because work is going in.
W41 = 0. Zero volume change.

Q12 = W12 = M•R•Th•ln(Vb/Vt) positive because the energy is going in.

Q23 = -M•Cv•(Th-Tc) negative because the energy is coming out.

Q34 = W34 = M•R•Th•ln(Vt/Vb) negative because the energy is coming out. Vt smaller than Vb, ln() function negative for values less than one.

Q41 = -M•Cv•(Tc-Th) positive because the energy is going in. Tc smaller than Th, two negatives combined to become a positive.

Q23 and Q41 cancel each other, being an equal and opposite regenerator processes. Ideally.


n = Wout/Qin = (W12 + W34) / (Q12)

Substituting:
n={(M•R•Th•ln(Vb/Vt))+(M•R•Tc•ln(Vt/Vb)}/{M•R•Th•ln(Vb/Vt)}

Using the log identity ln(x) = -ln(1/x), for ln(Vt/Vb) = -ln(Vb/Vt), the equation becomes:
n={(M•R•Th•ln(Vb/Vt))-(M•R•Tc•ln(Vb/Vt)}/{M•R•Th•ln(Vb/Vt)}

Canceling M•R•ln(Vb/Vt) top and bottom:
n=(Th-Tc)/Th
Ideally and a maximum for the temperatures given.

It is direct observable science from the observed relationship between temperature, pressure, volume, energy, mass and the linear coefficients of heat Cv, and ideal gas constant R for the real gas, Rn for Nitrogen, or whatever.

Again this doesn't equate Q to T. The differences just cancel out in the equations of n=W/Q, PV=MRT, and Q=MCvT, for a full cycle. Doesn't work for single strokes. Real engines will be worse.

I'll have to look for it again, but I did supply a link to a college professor's ideal gas law, plus other laws, derivation of the ideal Carnot Cycle to theorem proof.

.

Tom Booth wrote:Empirical testing and experimental results are subordinate to fools number juggling.

That is the truth. LOL

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/subordinate

placed in or belonging to a lower order or rank.

.

Fool wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 12:06 am

Tom Booth wrote:Empirical testing and experimental results are subordinate to fools number juggling.

That is the truth. LOL

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/subordinate

placed in or belonging to a lower order or rank.

.

"... LOL"

But that's how you act and apparently what you actually believe.

I strive not to believe. Science/Mathematics is about reliability and repeatability.

Belief is for clergy and followers, and distributed by dogma.


Please stop guessing.

.

Fool wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2024 9:37 am I strive not to believe. Science/Mathematics is about reliability and repeatability.

Belief is for clergy and followers, and distributed by dogma.


Please stop guessing.

.

"That is the truth" <<------

Your words

It's the epitome of conceit and arrogance if you think your flawed theoretical
mathematics is somehow a corrective over and above observable reality.

I don't care what you "strive" to do or not do. It's merely your opinion or belief, nothing more.

Unless you learn more about the reliability of mathematics, you will continue your beliefs. Mathematics is science, and mathematician's are well versed in entering empirical data into the theories.

One more important than the other? That's your belief. I use both appropriately to improve the reliability of knowledge.

"It's the truth" is the epitome of a joke. If you'd study more math and science, you'd recognize and enjoy that.

No such thing as truth.

Please stop guessing.

.

Fool wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2024 11:41 am Unless you learn more about the reliability of mathematics, you will continue your beliefs. Mathematics is science, and mathematician's are well versed in entering empirical data into the theories.

One more important than the other? That's your belief. I use both appropriately to improve the reliability of knowledge.

"It's the truth" is the epitome of a joke. If you'd study more math and science, you'd recognize and enjoy that.

No such thing as truth.

Please stop guessing.

.

As far as I'm concerned mathematics is largely guesswork based on theory and supposition and can be flawed in many ways.

Experiment and direct observation is not guesswork.

It's nice if they agree, but when they don't the observable experimental outcome is the corrective for flawed mathematics, which then needs re-evaluation.

If you think there is "no such thing as truth" I think you need a psychiatrist.

Thanks.

The thing is, with you, is that you've now started a diversion about the true meaning of truth, rather than talking about whether the information I claim is true is flawed or not? Why? You've also moved on to attacking me instead of the mathematics. Why?

.

Quit guessing about my thoughts.

Furthermore, guessing that what you see is the truth leaves you open to the delusions of a magic show.

Mathematical theory, prove magic shows impossible. So continue to assign truth to your beliefs, I'm sure you will get many followers, and doubters. With no theory to back you up, just a scrunch in your shoulders and a confession that you you don't know why it works, but it does.

And that is a sure sign of lack of science. Lack of a reliable theory. Equals, magic show. Equals quack.

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/the-many-meanings-of-truth/

Search yourself for, "is there truth in science". You find arguments both ways.

Then search for, "is science the truth". You will see much less agreement that there's no absolute truth in science.

Science is a search for reliability in our knowledge. Mathematical theory, is the current method that is the most reliable, followed closely by empiricism. If you saw off math, your empiricism crumblies.

.

This sort of off topic philosophical drivel is not anything I wish to perpetuate here.

"Don't feed the trolls" as they say.

I know your aptitude on this. I should say we ought to have an online discourse on this. Composing just remarks will close the talk straight away! What's more, will confine the advantages from this data. bitcoin online casinos