Stirlingengineforum.com

It appears Tesla fanboys are oblivious to basic science.

Tom recently posted a link to another forum where he continues his endless rant against Carnot and whatever he can get away with. In this post

https://talkrational.org/index.php/topi ... #msg458979

Tom brings up Lindemann video on Tesla "Self Actuating Engine" aka cold hole scheme. You can watch the video via above link or via youtube direct

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lLXvOodPlo

which has plenty of Tesla fanboy comments. Here's some screenshots...


As Tom mentions in talkrational forum, Lindemann's pitch is waaaay more complicated than necessary, but that's the con.

I always thought that Tom's cold hole pipe dream was focused on single engine, but if he wants to raise the bar and go duplex, let's see how this 'new' approach plays out...

I'm going to use a simple 300k 'cold hole' vs typical cryo scheme. Consider 2 similar Otto cycle machines where A is reefer and B is engine. Both have 300-1200k diatomic (air) cycles with 6:1 volume ratios. Within these values, the temperature ratio will vary by 2 during both compression and expansion. Therefore, reefer A will adiabatically compress 600-1200k, then isochorically cool 1200-600k, then adiabatically expand 600-300k, then isochorically heat 300-600k and engine B will isochorically heat 600-1200k, then adiabatically expand 1200-600k, then isochorically cool 600-300k, then adiabatically compress 300-600k. Thus, the sink reefer A = source engine B, and sink engine B = source reefer A.

Lindemann throws in enough BS to appear convincing like that Wpos from reefer A is .85 Wneg, but he avoids details. In my example here, the eff both Otto cycles is .50 simply because it's locked by the volume ratio. Furthermore, I picked an example where each process is equal work vs heat...in vs out. However, the thermal ratio can vary, and this would alter the Wpos/Wneg ratio (aka backwork ratio) but the thermal efficiency would remain constant, here .50 due to 6:1 volume ratio. Therefore, Lindemann's claim that reefer A Wpos = .85 Wneg could be correct with different values, but he's only pitching it this way to show reefer A is only running .15 energy deficit which is easier to 'compensate' for with engine B output.

My favorite part of Lindemann's con is his flow chart with ambient input shown as a Joe 6-pack car radiator of massive proportions to con you into thinking his scheme runs on massive amount of ambient heat energy, despite any heat to reefer A cycle has already been supplied by engine B sink. He achieves this illusion via his flowchart having reefer cycle running clockwise vs typical PV would have reefer cycle running counter-clockwise.

Another gimmick he throws in is engine B being a Stirling which is good buzz, but has another hidden head game where the partially learned think great...300-1200k Stirling =. 75 eff vs Otto = .50 therefore, system gains .50 if everything is 100% efficient. Ha...the 1200-600k temperature gradient from reefer A sink will gain no advantage over 600k engine B source when B is Stirling. His con is making some idiot/s think 1200k Tmax reefer A sink is T constant engine B source.

You can move the proportions of this sample cycle up and down the thermal scale and nothing changes. It's just like how altering the buffer pressure doesn't change the work area. I simply chose an ambient 'cold hole' to nix the voodoo.

Matt Brown wrote:It appears Tesla fanboys are oblivious to basic science.

Indeed. It is probably not ignorance, because they've been shown proper science. It is denial. They are slaves to their own deceptive beliefs. We all have that to some degree or another. The difference is how much we recognize it in ourselves. Hence the avatar "Fool", for myself. Mathematics seems to be more reliable than guessing. Natural science would not work without it. Guessing and beliefs lead to denial. Denying mathematics and science is a result of false beliefs. Questioning science is a good way to learn, if we are to just listen, and question and test more.

I think that part of the problem with an ambient heat engine is that it doesn't initially appear to be mathematically impossible - if you had an engine that was a little over 50% efficient at converting heat to 'work'; and also had a refridgerator that was a little more than 50% efficient, then bingo! Free (albeit very limited) energy. And Global cooling as a neat side-effect!

And it doesn't _look_ too different to what is already being done with Solar-stirling, so how hard can it be? :¬)

I'm oblivious as to what's so special about a "cold hole" for all these free energy guys.

The sun is hotter than objects in the shade. Done. That part is "free".

Making a practical engine that can be understood by the average Joe and doesn't look like a nuclear reactor is the problem.

I already know people with problematic heat pumps. Noone in the area can service them. Basically disposable junk.

I just spent two hours thinking about what MikeB has posted. I've been thinking about it off and on since he posted. I agree with him from a surface inspection that it appears to be simple to increase two 50% devices just a little bit and get more back. A deeper look into it says it's mathematically and physically impossible.

Simple answer: The first law of thermodynamics derived from observing that you can't put 100 J of energy into a system and get 102 J out. In other words, it appears that it is impossible to pour 100 ml of water into two empty 100 ml containers and get 102 ml. It is usually less than 100 ml because some sticks to the pouring container and some evaporates.

The first law says it has never been observed and for good reasons.

Diving deeper, the calculations leading to the second law explains why. Rasing the efficiency of an engine requires raising the temperature difference. This in turn reduces the COP. In other words, finding an engine above 50% will dictate a cooler to less than 50% by the same amount.

Case in point: Carnot calculation for a Stirling Engine and Cooler running between 300 K and 600 K is n=0.50 and COP=2, n•(COP)=1.

Running between 300 and 613 gives an n of about 0.51 and a COP of about 1.96, for an n•(COP) of about 1.

This doesn't describe why or how the Carnot limit is correct.

Throwing reality into the discussion, for an engine and cooler running on a temperature difference of 300 to 600, if you find an engine that gets as good or better than 37.5%, and or, a cooler that has a COP as good or better than 1.5 , patent it


The best solar plants are in the 30's percent wise, at best, and possibly operating at higher temperature differentials.

And 47 minutes posting this. In other words, I didn't do this reflexively.

By the way the site Matt mentions ended 2 years ago. Tom is now posting to a new "free energy" sight. I will respect his privacy and not post it's address, name, or link. That sight is a way better place for his Carnot dismissal than here. I wish him well.

Unfortunately he is blaming unspecified people here for "driving" him out. I would like to say, he left here on his own free will, choice, and is welcome back any time.

I will continue, and attempt, to explain why I think the mathematics makes logical reliable sense of the data we have and get.

Fool wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 5:51 am
Diving deeper, the calculations leading to the second law explains why.

Indeed, no DIRECT second law connection, only calculations leading there (and various calcs lead there).

Fool wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 5:51 am Raising the efficiency of an engine requires raising the temperature difference. This in turn reduces the COP. In other words, finding an engine above 50% will dictate a cooler to less than 50% by the same amount.

Home Run Fool !!! The typical duplex scheme involves (amongst other values) 3 temperatures which are best related as low, medium, and high temp. The medium temp is often ambient, but this is not a fundamental requirement. The basic scheme is engine runs between high and medium temps while reefer runs between medium and low temps. However, if the medium temp bisects the entire temp range, then engine = reefer and nothing happens due to energy balance. This ambient bisection was Lindemann's example and remains the most common, tho the temp range either side of ambient may vary.

And like Fool says, moving away from this 50-50 energy balance doesn't change anything (a tad heady to grasp).

It appears no one watched Lindemann's video all the way thru, since at end he pitches White Knight funding to save the world. This schmuck is a career conman, jumping between various free energy schemes over the decades.

Fool wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 5:51 am The best solar plants are in the 30's percent wise, at best, and possibly operating at higher temperature differentials.

28% at best with Si purity exceeding Mother Teresa. Real world PV tap out ~.12 under ideal conditions.

I preface this by saying I still don't feel like I have a full grasp on this whole thermodynamics subject.

I've been reading through the topic Matt linked and other old Tom posts. I think I get his idea better than before.
I'm still unconvinced by either side of the fence and I think I won't be until I start experimenting, which will have to wait a few months due to circumstances.
In the meantime I'm happy to keep discussing.

Simple answer: The first law of thermodynamics derived from observing that you can't put 100 J of energy into a system and get 102 J out.

I don't think Tesla or anyone really claims that an ambient heat engine does this. Granted, I haven't fully watched the presentation by Peter here.
I my view the claim is that, once the cold hole is set up, all the energy in the gradient between ambient and cold can be caught and used. Some of this will have to be used to maintain the cold hole due to insulation never being perfect.
That's how I interpret that. And so far it still sounds plausible to me.

Rasing the efficiency of an engine requires raising the temperature difference.

I don't understand this. I understand that raising the temperature difference will make an engine more efficient, as there's more energy to catch.
But why is it a requirement?

As for the Carnot limit, I really don't get that at all. I can't get rid of the feeling that it's been "designed" or thought of with piston engines in mind. Or maybe based on using pressure for getting work out of heat. Which also seems counter intuitive to me.

I've seen claims for record photo voltaic of 44% with market values in the 15 to 20 %.

Stirling voltaic seems to be about 30% and maybe a skosh higher. There is a lot of what ifs and wherefores by promoters.

Then the combined Stirling-electric-heat cycles raises the utilization somewhat higher. It seems there is always a gimmick in promoting a product.

Such as it always seems that free energy over unity promotion follows the following lines:

1, get your attention, "free energy".
2, Introduce what type of free energy is utilized, aether, ambient heat, cosmic, static electricity, gravity, capillary, etc...
3. Introduce the type of gizmo, vibrating mass, gas, fluid, electrical current, magnetic, rotating lifting mass.
4, Dismiss the laws of physics. It isn't free energy it's ambient heat from the sun.
5, Usually skipping any detailed construction descriptions. Or just asking for help getting it to work.
6, Go right into explaining in long and great detail how to use free energy, and it's other benefits, as if no one knows what to do with free energy. Be able to power ships, planes, homes, and curtail global warming cause it's turning heat into work (Completely ignoring the fact that work always fully gets converted back into heat because of irreversibility/friction.)
7, Ask for money and or help to research, or build a prototype. Or a least explain that they don't have the money to continue.
8, Promise to investors what they will get. Possible stock in a non-existent corporation. First purchase rights of first units when manufacturing starts.

The pitch usually is filled with step 6. A great amount, 90% or so, of pitch is going on and on about step 6. It is almost totally useless information, filler.

Finding the error isn't too hard, but certainly way more complicated than the claim. Explaining to them so they understand is damn near impossible. That problem there explains the animosity of science to pseudoscience. It takes a lot to explain away pseudoscience and in the end the inventor will probably not understand, or simply still just deny it.

Explaining why there is no Sasquatch is way more difficult than challenging anyone to "prove me wrong". Asking questions to learn is way better than asking questions to be proven wrong. "Why is won't this work?" is better than, "there is no proof this shouldn't work?".

Matt Brown wrote:And like Fool says, moving away from this 50-50 energy balance doesn't change anything (a tad heady to grasp).

Absolutely correct. The worst part to grasp is, if you have a cooler with COP of 5, all you need is an engine running on that same two temperatures that is 21% or higher. Seems like a slam dunk, when comparing engines and coolers, until you put in the temperature requirements.

Carnot dictates a maximum of 20%. But looking at cooler and engine efficiencies in the real world, that 20% percent quickly drops to 10%, and factoring in the cooler's real efficiencies it would probably drop to no more than 5%.

The upshot of this is that pseudo numbers 'may' make an idea look promising, but real numbers, and full analysis often shoot it down really quickly.

Jack wrote:I don't think Tesla or anyone really claims that an ambient heat engine does this.

Tesla thinks that a cold hole can be maintained using less work than what an engine can produce running between ambient and the cold hole. The second law of thermodynamics explains that Tesla is wrong. The second law is derived from the first law and the idea of a complete cycle.

MikeB used the specific 50% 50% case. I just expanded.

Jack wrote:But why is it a requirement?

MikeB and i were speaking of efficiencies at and above the Carnot limit. It gets confusing when mixing that with real engines. A Carnot engine and maximum efficiency is dictated by the temperatures. A real engine is dictated by the temperatures and a million additional degradations by other factors. Since a real engine's efficiency is so bad, usually less than half the Carnot limit, it's efficiency can be improved by many other factors than the temperatures. Once a real engine reaches Carnot efficiency it can no longer be increased by anything other than temperatures. The second law points this out for us. Why the law is correct is more complicated.

Jack wrote:As for the Carnot limit, I really don't get that at all. I can't get rid of the feeling that it's been "designed" or thought of with piston engines in mind. Or maybe based on using pressure for getting work out of heat. Which also seems counter intuitive to me.

The Carnot limit was first derived from waterwheel analogies and steam engine measurements. I didn't fully understand it until I Analyzed the proofs of it. The big thing for me was when I realized what "COP=1/n" means. It ties the Carnot Engine to a Carnot Heat Pump in ideal cycles (reversible).


Mathematical derivations/proofs can be done using PV=nRT. So to discard Carnot, you will also discard PV=nRT.

Over the last two hundred plus years the limit has been derived for all engines. The second law had all its doubts removed when it was found consistent with Statistical Thermodynamics and Information Theory in the 1940's and 50's. After Tesla. Since then it is now taught as a law, like F=Ma.

It also helped me to think that in a real engine with the piston and displacer sloshing the gas around, it probably wasn't reaching Th or Tc. So a real engine can't do any better than Th -∆T and Tc+∆T. Meaning it's maximum efficiency will be less.

Understanding that the Stirling Cooler internal temperatures will have a higher Th and lower Tc, makes it less efficient too. Reality is a loose loose situation.

Fool wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 2:36 am
Tesla thinks that a cold hole can be maintained using less work than what an engine can produce running between ambient and the cold hole. The second law of thermodynamics explains that Tesla is wrong. The second law is derived from the first law and the idea of a complete cycle.

This post was my walk thru for 100-300k cold hole Stirling cycle:

http://www.stirlingengineforum.com/view ... 282#p22282

The basic idea was to expose the "double threat" of such schemes wherein the 'low side' of cycle must content with BOTH the cooling of isothermal compression AND the work loss of this compression. Now, when we consider work=heat, we find that this simple type of cold hole scheme will double the energy loss on the low side vs conventional engines/cycles.

Fool wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 2:36 am Once a real engine reaches Carnot efficiency it can no longer be increased by anything other than temperatures. The second law points this out for us. Why the law is correct is more complicated.

As I said...

"Indeed, no DIRECT second law connection, only calculations leading there (and various calcs lead there)."

The second law is best considered a conclusion arrived after much study. It can be derived via math, but the setup is so diffused that this simple reduction may appear questionable. Interestingly, this conclusion is not chiseled in stone, but a conditional conclusion where various descriptions have attempted to exclude these conditions via clever wording. These "hidden" conditions are not a conspiracy, but they do play into second law deniers.

Fool wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 2:36 am The big thing for me was when I realized what "COP=1/n" means. It ties the Carnot Engine to a Carnot Heat Pump in ideal cycles (reversible).

Yep, that closes the book on common cold hole schemes.

Fool wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 2:36 am Mathematical derivations/proofs can be done using PV=nRT. So to discard Carnot, you will also discard PV=nRT.

Cold hole fanboys are on a sinking ship and don't know it, since a massive amount of evidence supports PV=nRT. Anyone challenging this simple equation is either ballsy or brainless.

Tesla thinks that a cold hole can be maintained using less work than what an engine can produce running between ambient and the cold hole. The second law of thermodynamics explains that Tesla is wrong. The second law is derived from the first law and the idea of a complete cycle.

With the risk of being labeled a Tesla/cold hole fanboy. I still think this is plausible.
This is just my intuition talking I guess.
The more I get into this subject, the less I understand why everything is relying on heat creating pressure.
When we know that gasses are compressible and temperature is molecular velocity.
Because a gas is compressible there's always going to be losses. I'm guessing that's the heat that "needs" to be rejected.
Why are we not trying to directly catch the kinetic energy from the molecules?

Anyway, that's what I'm trying to accomplish with my engine.

The way I see it is the first law hasn't been proven to be absolute (we have no clue if and how the universe is still creating energy). It's just a result of everything we tried so far.
In extension the second law as well.
Math is derived from observation, it's our way of trying to understand and explain the universe. I don't think one can use math to prove a point, because the math was derived from that point. We saw something happen and made an equation to explain that.
It's only good science to keep trying and test the boundaries. It might be in vain, but there's the tiniest chance it might not be. Good enough for me.

Jack wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 5:20 pm
Why are we not trying to directly catch the kinetic energy from the molecules?

This is a very good question and why I recently said that anyone attempting an ambient heat engine should simply "cut to the chase" and attempt an ambient pressure engine. I've spent many years gaming ambient pressure schemes that many guys would consider wacky perpetual motion. I find pressure schemes more flexible than heat schemes. Heat engines are really pressure engines, but where inter-related PVT issues are paramount. Most ambient pressure schemes tend towards over unity, but some pressure schemes are merely a means to cheat pesky Carnot.

Jack wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 5:20 pm It's only good science to keep trying and test the boundaries. It might be in vain, but there's the tiniest chance it might not be. Good enough for me.

It's all about energy, but who realized this until a few centuries ago during scientific discovery. We now have a good grasp on energy, but our current methods of harnessing it are primitive and wasteful. A google search MIGHT verify an answer, but it can't tell you the question.

Fool wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 6:07 am ...Tom is now posting to a new "free energy" sight. I will respect his privacy and not post it's address, name, or link. That sight is a way better place for his Carnot dismissal than here. I wish him well.

Unfortunately he is blaming unspecified people here for "driving" him out. I would like to say, he left here on his own free will, choice, and is welcome back any time.
...

You have no say so about who is "welcome" here of not.

Just to clarify, my leaving here has more to do with the general lack of moderation. Primarily the spam which left unchecked may contain, aside from game, pharma and porn, who knows what Trojans, rootkit, virus keyloggers, tracking or other potentially dangerous content or links. So I cannot in good conscience link to this forum from my YouTube videos.

The trolling by "fool" and other rabid "free energy" bashers and critics is also annoying, but would not by itself be enough to motivate me to relocate.

So I'll be posting elsewhere until, we can only hope, the forum owner returns and the potentially dangerous spam is cleaned up again. I'm more concerned what has happened with Darryl the forum owner than any inconvenience to me or you.

There is also no "privacy" issue.

I'm still posting under my real name, as always, as I've always done on many other forums for as long as I've been online.

I noticed "fool" has not posted here lately, in about a week. Too obsessed with trying to track my activities elsewhere I suppose.

I did manage to find a Science forum to post on where I haven't been banned, or the previous ban expired:

https://www.sciforums.com/threads/origi ... th.166462/

And as usual, I continue posting on a number of "free energy" friendly sites as well.

https://teslaresearch.jimdofree.com/myt ... ng-engine/

https://open-source-energy.org/?PHPSESS ... opic=427.0

https://www.energyscienceforum.com/foru ... -lindemann

http://www.energeticforum.com/forum/ene ... ect/page20

Etc. etc. etc.

I'm not hiding or difficult to find, and am certainly not seeking "privacy" by posting in my real name all over the internet.

Unfortunately, until the unchecked spam situation here is resolved, I'll be keeping my activity here to the bare minimum, though I continue to check in from time to time.

Fool, you really need to get a life and find something else to do other than tracking Tom Booth on the internet.

Good to to hear from you again Tom Booth. I always hate to see close-minded haters try to shut down free thinkers. It goes two ways though; we need to make our points and move on, else we argue with the mirror. I done plenty of that.