Sippy Bird Experiments.

[Tom Booth]

It's hard to come up with a new idea.

This guy has the bird winding the clock, but if you watch closely, it is also pumping a few drops of water from the little faucet and filling its own drinking bowl.

https://youtu.be/NXRnuaNNKX8

Incidentally, again proving "fool's" opinions nothing more than the uninformed opinions of an arrogant blowhard.

At least he admitted to being wrong in his assumption that the bird could not produce enough power to lift it's own water.

That still does not make it "perpetual motion", just an ambient heat engine, running on environmental heat.

[Fool]

.

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

Unlike some people on this sight, I'm not fully convinced by a YouTube video. Videos of those giant birds "drinking" makes my skeptic meter ping. Sorry. The regular sinusoidal motion and lack of bobbing, makes it look like they are driven by a motor and mechanical links. I could find very little claiming anything other than they were genuine. So I am not here to refute what is shown. But... Here is another link to view:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OQGbJnPLx5s

If one looks closely at the level of fluid in the bottom, it rises only about 4 Inches, proving that taller is useless. The extra power only comes from a fatter tube. I will commend Mr. Daniel Reynolds for his efforts. It is an amazing accomplishment. Just for the culture. If it works as advertised, even more kudos. I just can't accept that 4" of fluid rise can power what we see. If so I stand corrected. If not shame on those claiming it's legit.

Lying for the sake of a art or magic show is one thing, lying during the process of science is unacceptable. Be sure of what you present, otherwise point out your doubts. Error on the side of caution.

It apparently cost $20,000.00 to make them, I counted at least 8. I don't know if it was $20 k a piece or for all eight. For a device that provides zero useful work, it is kind of expensive. I'm not sure if scaling it up has increased the amount of power to overcome friction to the point that the power generated thermodynamically is barely higher than what is required for operation. A small one develops microwatts a large one even though it has more driving power, it has less deliverable output power, or at least less per size and cost. That is what theory and numbers would show.

I did get inspired, by the giant birds, for a different type of water pump. Cut a piece of tubing. Put a flapper check valve on one end. It can be made out of Suran Wrap. Attach it to the bird's head or tail so it dipps in a supply of water. Like a thumb on the end of a straw, pick up some water by the bird tipping back and up. After the bird swivels, the tube becomes angled downward so it drains out to a higher reservoir. Use that lifted water to run a waterwheel to raise a smaller amount of water even higher.

It could use just a dipper cup and trough made out of aluminum foil.

From the following web site:

https://gwern.net/doc/rotten.com/librar ... index.html

The birds are made of pyrex glass, and require a so the liquid can travel efficiently.

I don't know what, "special vacuum attachment", entails. It is the only thing I found that encourages my skeptic meter to ping.

I also found the following experimental demonstration of the drinking bird:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UCKC-QVcVn0

Leads me to think the bird doesn't work from boiling and condensing, just from relative pressures causing a little bit of, evaporation, and condensation of the fluid inside the bird. Which forces the fluid out of the base and up the tube, like a drinking straw. No boiling necessary.

.

[Fool]

.

This guy has the bird winding the clock, but if you watch closely, it is also pumping a few drops of water from the little faucet and filling its own drinking bowl.

Hardly enough power to run a radio and lights. Maybe just a radio, maybe...

.

[Fool]

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

You were making the audacious claim that heating and cooling sufficiently changes molecules. Then led into engines powered by molecular bonding.

I merely recommended you read up on them. Molecular change is what powers evolution. You are completely off base taking about it here. It is also a result of chemical reactions.

Our engines are powered by kinetic energy stored in the motion of gas atoms and or molecules.

Below are your words:

Heating or cooling of a substance can result in molecular changes that result in an expansion or contraction or a change in volume of that substance.

There is no such thing as contraction in a gas. The volume of a gas is constrained by the container it's in. Your continued fraudulent ideas and stubbornness in these points is getting everyone nowhere. Bringing quantum mechanics into this discussion is even further from your knowledge base.

One of these day you will learn that all you know is that you know nothing.

.

[Fool]

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

Because Tom Booth can't follow simple definitions of efficiency, the rest of us aren't allowed to use it in any equations... Many people understand it. It's easy to follow. Definitions are given. Your inabilities have been demonstrated often here. Proves nothing. Zero cohesive mathematics from you. Take some college level math courses, or even highschool level math courses. Get good instruction.

[Tom Booth]

.

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

Unlike some people on this sight, I'm not fully convinced by a YouTube video. Videos of those giant birds "drinking" makes my skeptic meter ping. Sorry. The regular sinusoidal motion and lack of bobbing, makes it look like they are driven by a motor and mechanical links. I could find very little claiming anything other than they were genuine. So I am not here to refute what is shown. But... Here is another link to view:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OQGbJnPLx5s

If one looks closely at the level of fluid in the bottom, it rises only about 4 Inches, proving that taller is useless. The extra power only comes from a fatter tube. I will commend Mr. Daniel Reynolds for his efforts. It is an amazing accomplishment. Just for the culture. If it works as advertised, even more kudos. I just can't accept that 4" of fluid rise can power what we see. If so I stand corrected. If not shame on those claiming it's legit.

Lying for the sake of a art or magic show is one thing, lying during the process of science is unacceptable. Be sure of what you present, otherwise point out your doubts. Error on the side of caution.

It apparently cost $20,000.00 to make them, I counted at least 8. I don't know if it was $20 k a piece or for all eight. For a device that provides zero useful work, it is kind of expensive. I'm not sure if scaling it up has increased the amount of power to overcome friction to the point that the power generated thermodynamically is barely higher than what is required for operation. A small one develops microwatts a large one even though it has more driving power, it has less deliverable output power, or at least less per size and cost. That is what theory and numbers would show.

I did get inspired, by the giant birds, for a different type of water pump. Cut a piece of tubing. Put a flapper check valve on one end. It can be made out of Suran Wrap. Attach it to the bird's head or tail so it dipps in a supply of water. Like a thumb on the end of a straw, pick up some water by the bird tipping back and up. After the bird swivels, the tube becomes angled downward so it drains out to a higher reservoir. Use that lifted water to run a waterwheel to raise a smaller amount of water even higher.

It could use just a dipper cup and trough made out of aluminum foil.

From the following web site:

https://gwern.net/doc/rotten.com/librar ... index.html

The birds are made of pyrex glass, and require a so the liquid can travel efficiently.

I don't know what, "special vacuum attachment", entails. It is the only thing I found that encourages my skeptic meter to ping.

I also found the following experimental demonstration of the drinking bird:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UCKC-QVcVn0

Leads me to think the bird doesn't work from boiling and condensing, just from relative pressures causing a little bit of, evaporation, and condensation of the fluid inside the bird. Which forces the fluid out of the base and up the tube, like a drinking straw. No boiling necessary.

.

My apologies,

You may be right. If the big birds require a "special vacuum device", though I'm not sure what that means.

The small birds also require a vacuum. It would be exceedingly difficult, I suppose it would be difficult to make a giant drinking bird with a permanent sealed vacuum, so is the "vacuum" device just a temporary measure, like used for a refrigeration system only occasionally?

Also watching those videos the head of the birds appears to be just vinyl material and not actually absorbing much if any water for evaporative cooling.

Now I'm skeptical as well, but somewhat undecided, as if balanced very carefully the small birds will also operate without the fluid rising very high, I think. It does vary quite a lot depending on how it's adjusted anyway.

If the pivot point is high the fluid must rise all the way to the head, but if the pivot point is low making the bird more top heavy, it only requires the fluid to rise part way up the neck. I haven't attempted to see if it would work with such a relatively small rise as seen in that video though. I may try experimenting with it and make a video or at least report on the results.

Anyway, I think your skepticism is justified, it is, after all, "just an art exhibit", but I'm on the fence.

[Tom Booth]

.

This guy has the bird winding the clock, but if you watch closely, it is also pumping a few drops of water from the little faucet and filling its own drinking bowl.

Hardly enough power to run a radio and lights. Maybe just a radio, maybe...

.

No, to run my camp, I was referring to a scaled up Stirling engine of some kind not a tiny toy bird.

[Tom Booth]

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

You were making the audacious claim that heating and cooling sufficiently changes molecules. Then led into engines powered by molecular bonding.

I merely recommended you read up on them. Molecular change is what powers evolution. You are completely off base taking about it here. It is also a result of chemical reactions.

Our engines are powered by kinetic energy stored in the motion of gas atoms and or molecules.

Below are your words:

Heating or cooling of a substance can result in molecular changes that result in an expansion or contraction or a change in volume of that substance.

There is no such thing as contraction in a gas. The volume of a gas is constrained by the container it's in. Your continued fraudulent ideas and stubbornness in these points is getting everyone nowhere. Bringing quantum mechanics into this discussion is even further from your knowledge base.

One of these day you will learn that all you know is that you know nothing.

.

IMO gas molecules absolutely must have attractive forces that cause the group of molecules within a container or wherever, to come closer and closer together due to mutual attraction before finally coming close enough to condens into a liquid.

Mutual attraction of gases lowers pressure on a container wall as is well known and I've already linked to some relevant sites on the subject.

As water vapor in a 55 gallon drum will condense (contract, draw together) into a liquid leaving a vacuum, so all gas molecules have mutual attraction and "contract", long before condensing into a liquid.

Or do you suppose that a large volume of gas just suddenly ALL turns into a liquid without a gradual attraction drawing them closer and closer before finally condensing?

[Tom Booth]

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

Because Tom Booth can't follow simple definitions of efficiency, the rest of us aren't allowed to use it in any equations... Many people understand it. It's easy to follow. Definitions are given. Your inabilities have been demonstrated often here. Proves nothing. Zero cohesive mathematics from you. Take some college level math courses, or even highschool level math courses. Get good instruction.

OK, please answer this:

Does "Carnot efficiency" include friction as part of the "rejected" so-called "waste heat" or not?

If you can find an authoritative reference I'd be very grateful.

Likely though, I could find you as many that say the opposite.

Supposedly the Carnot engine discounts friction, so logically so does the "Carnot limit" though many references include it as part of the heat "rejected".

If so, how can "friction" be precisely calculated by the ∆T?

Please resolve this, if you can, as I've seen as many references say one opinion as the other, and I think you have flip flopped on the subject as well.

[Tom Booth]

Your reference above regarding the 6ft high dippy bird Art exhibit includes this:

The head of the Institute of Thermodynamics at the University of Stuttgart in Germany turned over all their research and development resources to assist in the project

Aside from the investment in time and money, if there was deception involved, it seems it would have required quite a conspiracy, and why bother with the institute of thermodynamics if the intent was just a display driven by motors only intended to appear similar to the ordinary toy bird?

Anyway, when I talk about scalling up the idea I mean in principle. There would be no practicality in giant dippy birds.

As I've mentioned many times I think it would be easier and more practical to use a Stirling engine to drive a more conventional heat pump to generate a ∆T which should allow the engine to extract energy from the ambient heat, drive the heat pump and do some additional work as well.

I don't buy the assertion that LTD engines are inherently low efficiency because the ∆T can be relatively small.

It is illogical IMO to conclude that an improved "ultra LTD" type heat engine design that can operate on a 0.5°C ∆T is less efficient than a engine that requires a 300°C ∆T or won't run at all.

Anyway, I see no ACTUAL account of anyone having ever tried it, or something similar where it did not work.

There ARE numerous accounts where some such device reportedly did work.

The zero-motor for example was tested extensively by the Navy for three months in the Naval yard and declared sound in principle and operational and was signed off on by the president.

Then suddenly the smear campaign started declaring the inventor a fraud and the president was assassinated.

The only actual extensive examination and testing demonstrated the engine to work.

Sensational news articles about how the Navy and the president were fooled by a perpetual motion crackpot don't really carry much weight IMO.

There are many other examples. Most notably, Tripler of Liquid Air fame and Gorrie, inventor of mechanical refrigeration, but there were many others.

Both Tripler and Gorrie, as well as the zero motor inventor were subject to smear campaigns and public ridicule.

Is there a conspiracy to suppress this technology?

I don't know. What I do know is I've done many experiments of my own and I know I am no charlatan. I'm giving, or at least trying to give accurate reports of my experimental results. Admittedly I've made mistakes, such as hooking up the thermocouples backwards.

I'm just a hobbyist building model engines and I've been subject to the same kind of relentless ridicule by you and others.

So what is your game exactly "fool"?

Are you being paid to harass me and try to discredit me and my experiments, or do you just consider this your civic duty?

[Tom Booth]

.

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

Unlike some people on this sight, I'm not fully convinced by a YouTube video. Videos of those giant birds "drinking" makes my skeptic meter ping. Sorry. The regular sinusoidal motion and lack of bobbing, makes it look like they are driven by a motor and mechanical links. I could find very little claiming anything other than they were genuine. So I am not here to refute what is shown. But... Here is another link to view:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OQGbJnPLx5s

If one looks closely at the level of fluid in the bottom, it rises only about 4 Inches, proving that taller is useless.
....

Well, I made the adjustments as previously described.

It was not difficult to get the toy birds motion to rather closely approximate the motion of the giant size birds. And also, as predicted, the liquid fluid does not need to rise up the tube very far for the bird to operate after making such adjustments; just sliding the bird up (or the pivot point down) making the bird a little more top heavy.

Actually I think the bird swings in a greater arc that way, possibly allowing it to cool off more and work better, in some ways

It does not however upright itself with such a rapid jolt, so it would probably be difficult to get the toy bird to pump water adjusted this way. The swing is wide and lazy without as much torque.

Nevertheless, personally I'm satisfied by this test that the giant birds are simply balanced slightly different which accounts for the difference in movement and the difference in height the liquid rises.

https://youtu.be/bg1p0dKwzW8

[VincentG]

Tom I would like to see the bottom front part of the bulb bumping into a stiff spring at the end of its swing. It would probably make for quite a bit faster action.

[Fool]

.

My apologies,

No apologies necessary. We are all here to learn and present a viewpoint. Hopefully our viewpoints will evolve towards a mutual similarity by our cordial scientific discourse. After all, it is you that I'm depending on for any experiments. LOL. I'd do some myself, time allowing. Kudos to you.

You may be right. If the big birds require a "special vacuum device", though I'm not sure what that means.,

I agree, i don't know what "special vacuum device" means either. To me there is a difference between a vacuum, and a "special vacuum device". But it could just be linguistic style or lack of media reporter understanding. It could just mean, vacuum.

... if the pivot point is low making the bird more top heavy, it only requires the fluid to rise part way up the neck.

Yes. I agree. I was going to comment on this before your latest experiment. Your efforts makes my comment moot. I knew balance point was important, and the big birds could work with such a little rise. My point is that the power and mass increase didn't seem to scale up the same as did the size, maybe it did. I will make further comments on you excellent demonstration in a later post.

Anyway, I think your skepticism is justified, it is, after all, "just an art exhibit", but I'm on the fence.

Thanks. As I've said, all comments I've found, say the birds actually work. I'm still undecided, but on the skeptical fence. Meaning that the regular perfect motion doesn't seem correct for a heat and fluid rise engine operation, so dismissed until I get better data.

No, to run my camp, I was referring to a scaled up Stirling engine of some kind not a tiny toy bird.

Of course. My point is that the bird design won't scale well. The person whom translated the Japanese research to English for us, gave a very detailed description of a very large low temperature differential engine that would fit your requirements quite well. Time is why I don't build such an engine. A couple of posters here are constructing 55 gallon barrel equivalents but different, to it. Kudos to them.

.

[Fool]

.

IMO gas molecules absolutely must have attractive forces that cause the group of molecules within a container or wherever, to come closer and closer together due to mutual attraction before finally coming close enough to condens into a liquid.

Molecules have a mutual attractive force. True. Gas molecules have relative velocities. If that velocity is above the 'escape velocity' they are gaseous. Below the escape velocity they tend to clump/liquefy. As two molecules get closer their mutual attraction makes their velocities increase. They accelerate towards each other. They get faster. Velocity is related to temperature. The funny thing is that escape velocity is higher when closer. So if below escape velocity, they tend to clump no matter how close they get or speed up from mutual attraction. If below the escape velocity, and they are clumping, they get close enough to have their repulsion kick in and effectively orbit each other, become liquid. Colder, they become solids, orbits become vibrations locked into positions.

There are several types of molecular bonding: ionic, covalent, Vanderwal, metallic, and hydrogen are some. They all have different strengths. Combined with size and pressure they dictate melting and boiling points.

If they are above the escape velocity, even if they are headed straight at each other, they will not clump. They will bounce off from each other's repulsive force, and keep going. This is true of identical molecules or different substances. They tend to trade energy's. Like a Newton's cradle. Trading kinetic energy is the transfer of heat. Heat is not the movement of molecules as often stated. Movement of molecules is internal energy, it is related to temperature. The attractive force, and repulsive force become transparent, and both are replaced by the bouncing force associated with energy and momentum.

The bouncing force added up is called pressure. There is talk of zero pressure in a vacuum, but it never quite gets there.

The velocity added up is called temperature. There is talk of zero temperature, but it never quite gets there

The range of travel, distance, is called volume. There is talk of zero volume in a vacuum, or at zero Kelvin, for an ideal gas, but never for a real gas. Real gasses have finite liquid and solid volumes.

Gasses don't liquefy because they get closer together, they liquefy because they get colder, slower. Pushing them together does increase that liquefaction temperature, but it increases temperature too. So pushing them together isn't likely to liquify them, unless cooled too.

So gases always push, are always present even when the liquid is smaller than the size of the container and also true of solids. That push just gets smaller, but never zero, even at very low temperatures. There is a sudden lowering change in pressure when a gas liquefies, (Can crush). Not so much when going from liquid to solid, but some can produce dramatic events, (Ice bomb).

As water vapor in a 55 gallon drum will condense (contract, draw together) into a liquid leaving a vacuum, so all gas molecules have mutual attraction and "contract", long before condensing into a liquid.

Yes. It is just overridden by the bounce force caused by being over the escape velocity, being hot and gasified.

Or do you suppose that a large volume of gas just suddenly ALL turns into a liquid without a gradual attraction drawing them closer and closer before finally condensing?

Yes. Except that gas molecules are always flying around each other, getting closer, bouncing off walls, bouncing off each other, getting further away, until they get cold enough, slow enough, to effectively spiral in, to an orbit. Example, cloud in a bottle.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WeXuKd0vMRk

It may be the wrong video. I just copied it. Didn't watch it. Cloud forms suddenly by all the alcohol vapor turning suddenly into liquid droplets, no longer pushing, or pulling.


.

[Tom Booth]

... My point is that the bird design won't scale well. ...

Looks like it scales pretty well to me.

The design is certainly not practical, but the big birds work in principle, same as the toys, according to all parties involved in the project.

Either it scales, or there is a big conspiracy to make people believe it does and cover up that it doesn't really work as claimed.

I'm satisfied it works, but I'm not going to build a giant dippy bird to disprove your conspiracy theory.