Stirling Heat Engine + Heat (Fuel) Pump = Limitless Energy

[Tom Booth]

About the title of this thread: Stirling Heat Engine + Heat (Fuel) Pump = Limitless Energy

I say "Stirling Heat engine" specifically, because Stirling engines are rather "special" heat engines.

Virtually every engine; engines that run on gasoline, diesel, or propane are considered "Heat" engines, though they require fuel of some kind. Stirling engines, however, use "heat" itself as "fuel". The heat to fuel a Stirling engine can come from anywhere, gasoline, diesel, propane, wood, sunlight, warm "waste" process water, coal, methane, the heat from burning hydrogen gas, electric heating elements, Peltier devices, geothermal, even your own body heat, and perhaps most controversially, ubiquitous environmental heat present everywhere.

It is very easy to gather up and concentrate environmental heat using a heat pump. Heat can be MOVED from one location where is serves no purpose to another location where it becomes useful. A heat pump can be used to move heat from outdoors to indoors to heat your home, or from indoors to outdoors to cool your home. This can be accomplished using much LESS energy to simply MOVE the heat than the energy that is represented by the heat itself.

Here is a video of a simple hand operated heat pump:

Hx4tXKo8yLw

This is the same as a refrigerator/freezer or air conditioner just striped down to the bare essentials, or ALMOST the bare essentials. Aside from the compressor in the middle, the two radiators on either side are really just one long continuous loop of copper tubing. The tubing is arranged in the form of a "radiator" simply for compactness. In other cases, the tubing may be stretched out as seen on the back of many refrigerators:

55701

The tubing could just as well be made into (or left as) a circular spiral:

55702

Most refrigeration tubing is sold already rolled up in a spiral.

Now here is a video of a simple Stirling engine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g0FHZzP7T8

Stirling engines of this basic type and size are able to produce at least as much as 500 watts if provided with some actual heat input.

It should be easy to see how some coils of hot and/or cold refrigerator/heat pump tubing could go inside a large flat "Low Temperature" Stirling engine of this type without any problem.

The problem I've had over the past 15 years or so, attempting to discuss this subject on various forums on the internet is that the discussion will often be immediately shut down by the forum moderators as being in violation of the forums "terms of service".

It seems that virtually all online science and physics forums as well as many general engineering and other general topic forums have rules against discussion of "perpetual motion".

On other forums where the topic is not explicitly forbidden, in my experience, the discussion will sooner or later be shut down one way or another.

The various tactics I've experienced are "dogpiling" (defined as: "a number of people join in directing critical or abusive comments at another person). spamming the thread with reams of meaningless or irrelevant gibberish, Hacking the forum and posting explicit pornography and/or pornographic links into the thread and/or posts containing tracking, contacting the forum owner by PM and/or making numerous reports about the thread using multiple fake usernames or "sock puppets" cloaked IP addresses and throw away email addresses, hacking the forum, threatening the forum owner with legal consequences, including sending letters from lawyers to the forum owners home address, "doxing", etc. etc.

Not very long ago, the owner of the Stirling Engine forum I frequented for many years knew me well enough and was fair minded enough that he refused to cave in to the pressure that was put on him to have me removed from the forum. Instead, he had informed me that he was going to ban THEM from the forum. The day he told me via PM that he was going to confront one of these people and more than likely ban them from the forum if they did not stop stalking and harassing me, he rather unexpectedly died sitting in front of his doctor during (according to his family) what was supposed to be a routine checkup. Needless to say, with the forum owner gone, the offending party was free to continue posting.

All this seems rather remarkable and unbelievable, even to me, because, well, ... I'm a retired engine mechanic who has been doing nothing very remarkable, just experimenting with small cheap model Stirling Engines that are readily available to anyone. My intention, at least from the outset, was never to build any kind of "free energy" machine or go up against the Oil industry, I was just trying to find out how ordinary Stirling engines work so I could build one to run off my wood stove, or thermal/solar.

It seems the internet in general is full of paid shills and provocateurs (people who will instigate various problems on a forum) on the lookout for any mention about the topic of combining a heat engine and heat pump using the heat pump as a "fuel pump" to deliver the heat to the heat engine.

Now, every gasoline powered truck, or automobile uses a FUEL PUMP that is directly or indirectly powered by the engine. Does anyone consider that to be "perpetual motion"? ... a heat engine operating a fuel pump that provides fuel to the heat engine that powers the fuel pump that delivers the fuel that powers the engine that powers the fuel pump...

Well, that sounds like perpetual motion, but in actuality it takes less energy to deliver the fuel to the engine then the energy needed to run the fuel pump...

But is not that also true of a Heat Pump? A heat pump can deliver several times more energy in the form of heat than the energy required to run the fuel pump itself, it is easy to MOVE heat or move ENERGY.

It doesn't take much energy to carry a can of fuel (gasoline) from someone's garage and pour the fuel into a car's gas tank. It only requires a small amount of energy to MOVE fuel from a place where it is not useful to a place where it becomes very useful.

So, it seems very obvious that if a heat pump can move several times more energy in the form of heat than the energy required to operate the heat pump then using a heat pump as a "fuel pump" to deliver heat to operate a Stirling engine is a "no brainer".

A LOT of people come up with this idea, then open a thread on a Science or Physics forum with a title something like: "hey, couldn't a heat pump be used to run a Stirling engine?" and there are A LOT of people ready to immediately shut down the conversation, lock the thread, remove the thread to the "Junk" or "trash" or "pseudoscience" discard bin while generally abusing and ridiculing the OP as a "free energy" / "perpetual motion" / "zero-point energy" / "pseudoscience" nutcase or crackpot then dox them and ban them from the forum.

Case in point, my most recent foray on a German Language forum:

A forum member on the thread went to the trouble of finding my address and posting a photo of the house I'm currently living in:

https://www.allmystery.de/themen/gw113123-2848

Currently I restore Historic buildings and homes. Often while working on a place I may also live there.

So, I'm currently fixing up an old historic home. Big deal. We may actually keep this one to live in.

These people do not intimidate me.

Anyway, it seems whenever I start posting that I'm in the process of building some experimental prototype, the attacks on the forums seem to ramp up. After the Stirling engine forum owner passed away, that forum went away as nobody paid the hosting fee. The owner somehow made a backup of the forum, but with no moderator, it has become unusable, overrun with spam.

Anyway, building a combination Stirling Engine / Heat Pump should not be particularly difficult. I think I have already gathered all the necessary components to put together a working prototype or small working model.

55703

I've started threads of this nature before, but they generally get derailed. These people will start posting page after page of garbage posts that make the topic impossible to follow, or I'm banned or the thread is locked, or the forum shut down.

I've also been reluctant to put together an experimental machine, build a working model or prototype, without an "audience" of some sort due to the persistent stories about how such prototypes are confiscated as soon as they are built. Not much benefit would be derived in that case.

In the past, I have always uploaded my Stirling engine experiments to YouTube immediately, often while the experiment is ongoing before I even know what the outcome will be myself.

Poking around here, this forum has a ton of "free energy" type material, which kind of makes me wonder how it has survived.

I suppose being limited access / invitation-only helps. It also seems probable that this forum is actually a CIA front designed to keep tabs on people like me. Who knows?

Whatever the case, I'll try giving it another go.

[rgray222]

Many of us share a keen interest in limitless, affordable, or free energy. Over the years, members have explored various approaches, and to my knowledge, the CIA has never shown up on their doorstep. I am sure there are quite a few members and guests who would like to hear more about your ideas and any experiments you're working on. Looking forward to your contributions! I recommend that you take a look at Wade Fraziers threat titled - WADE FRAZIER: A Healed Planet (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?10672-WADE-FRAZIER-A-Healed-Planet&p=91260&viewfull=1#post91260)

[Tom Booth]

Many of us share a keen interest in limitless, affordable, or free energy. Over the years, members have explored various approaches, and to my knowledge, the CIA has never shown up on their doorstep. I am sure there are quite a few members and guests who would like to hear more about your ideas and any experiments you're working on. Looking forward to your contributions! I recommend that you take a look at Wade Fraziers threat titled - WADE FRAZIER: A Healed Planet (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?10672-WADE-FRAZIER-A-Healed-Planet&p=91260&viewfull=1#post91260)

I believe I've read through all of Wade's material relevant to this subject. Unfortunately, as he expressed in the interview: "The ride was too rough for me"

https://projectavalon.net/wade_frazier_brian_o_leary_27_march_2009.mp3

and seems to be disinterested in revisiting the topic.

I recently came across this episode of the Why Files posted on another thread:

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?123020-Thank-God-for-the-suppression-of-free-energy-and-antigravity

that attributes much of the motivation for the US government's suppression of energy technologies that could compete with oil to the 1974 "Petrodollar agreement" between Saudi Arabia and the United States.

Time stamp: 12:00 - 12:35

-ZRwlYtAMps

Apparently, the agreement expired last year:

https://chaipredict.com/resources/expiration-saudi-us-petrodollar-agreement

I'd love to hear Wade's views on the subject, but he seems to be distancing himself for reasons that are understandable, considering what he went through.

Anyway, I've experienced so many apparently well organized, vicious, relentless "attacks", censorship, banning, etc. on the various online forums for simply trying to discuss the subject objectively I have some difficulty dismissing the suppression horror stories reported by actual inventors and builders of working prototypes.

I say these "attacks" on me seem to be well organized because this has been ongoing for years. Forum moderators have contacted me telling me about unusual activity on their servers, private messages received, hacking, etc. all specifically targeting me in an effort to prevent me from simply posting my ideas and simple kitchen table experiments.

Repeatedly, one of the "attackers" would get into an argument with me, that might go on for weeks, then suddenly someone using the same username on the forum would be completely clueless on the subject. This happened repeatedly, so many times, I became quite certain that there is some kind of "shill mill". Different people. different personalities with different views and opinions working in shifts sitting down at a terminal somewhere.

Anyway, I press on.

I just completed a little sketch or concept drawing of a combined Low Temperature Difference style Stirling engine / Heat pump combination where the evaporator and condenser coils of the heat pump are incorporated right into the hot and cold Stirling engine heat exchangers.


55706

[Tom Booth]

In studying various types of refrigeration systems, I came across a very interesting phenomenon.

Here is an illustration of your most basic refrigeration cycle:


55707


Just a pump/compressor pulling air or refrigerant out from one end of a tube and pushing the air/refrigerant back into the other end of the same tube in a continuous loop.

In order for this to be a refrigeration cycle, though, the tube needs to have a restriction in the middle so that as the compressor/pump draws air out from one end a partial vacuum is created in one side of the tube, then as the air/refrigerant is pushed out into the other end of the tube, that gas, air or refrigerant is held back by the restriction so that pressure builds up on the other side of the restriction.

The compressed gas on one side gets HOT but after passing through the restriction the gas expands and gets cold.

If the hot gas is allowed to cool down before it passes through the restriction it will then become much colder when it passes through to the other side.

Now, another method of refrigeration was discovered. In this new method, there is the same basic setup, but instead of a simple restriction in the line, the restriction (or "expansion valve" or "capillary") is replaced with a compressed air driven motor.

55708

The compressed air driven motor can, or actually MUST, for it to function properly so as to produce a refrigerating effect, be used to power something. And this is the remarkable thing.

By having the compressed air driven motor powering something external to the refrigeration system, energy is effectively taken out of the air/gas/refrigerant as it passes through and drives the motor (or turbine, or "expansion engine").

This additional energy removal causes the refrigerant to become much MUCH COLDER than it gets just passing through a simple valve.

It is even possible to turn around and use the compressed air driven motor to help or assist in driving the compressor that compressed the air or refrigerant in the first place.

Jeff Nading had informed me about this type of refrigeration system way back in 2012, but at the time I think it went over my head:

https://open-source-energy.org/?topic=427.msg4236#msg4236

So, in essence, by "reclaiming" energy by using an expansion ENGINE or turbine (essentially just an air driven motor) not only is energy recovered, but the refrigeration effect is enhanced. The refrigerant gets MUCH COLDER.

Interesting also is this type of "turbo-refrigeration" is well suited to using ordinary atmospheric air as the refrigerant.

In the above combined Stirling Engine / Heat Pump "concept drawing" it can be seen how this phenomenon of energy recovery along with enhanced cooling power is taken advantage of 1) to reduce the load on the Stirling engine and 2) to increase the effective temperature difference.

The greater the temperature difference, the more powerful the Stirling engine becomes.

[Tom Booth]

Constructing a combined Stirling Engine / Heat pump with a built-in Turboexpander, while it might work, in theory, could be enormously difficult and expensive to implement, even as a small prototype. Turbines, generally, require precision manufacturing.

There may be an easier way to test this concept however:

After many years of observation and experimentation I have come to the conclusion that Stirling engines DO NOT operate in the way that has been supposed for the past century.

It is well known that an ordinary Stirling engine itself will act as a HEAT PUMP if DRIVEN by a motor. It is generally supposed that the Stirling engine must be driven by the motor IN REVERSE.

This assumption, however, appears to be wrong.

A Stirling engine acts as a HEAT PUMP All the time, even during normal operation.

The above statement is, to say the least, controversial. suggesting that a century or more of thermodynamic assumptions and heat engine theory are wrong, or at least inapplicable to Stirling engines.

A Stirling engine. from my years of observation and testing, appears to be a HEAT Powered Heat Pump.

The Stirling engine DOES NOT take in heat from the HOT SIDE and transfer that heat over to the COLD SIDE, as universally assumed to be the case. Watch a dozen YouTube videos and read a dozen written explanations about "How a Stirling Engine Works" and they ALL say the same thing. They say that heat flows THROUGH the engine from the hot side to the cold side.

The "FACT" that a Stirling engine operates by transferring heat from the hot side to the cold side is often demonstrated by putting ice on top of the engine. This action causes the engine to run observably faster and stronger, the assumption being that the ice increases the temperature difference which increases the heat flow through the engine from the hot side to the cold side. In other words, the heat "FALLS" faster or TRANSFERS across from the hot side to the cold side faster.

Here are some examples of such demonstrations:

6Y4eXS9o_cM


Q5QEBqjkNjo


ALzP5r7z0uU


taDHMw38aE0


The general assumption is that heat flows THROUGH the Stirling engine, THROUGH from the hot or warmer side and over to the "sink" and back out.

Another general assumption is that the greater the temperature difference, the FASTER this process of heat transfer takes place, that is, more heat FLOWS THROUGH THE ENGINE FASTER so naturally the engine runs faster, and this APPEARS to be observably true.

Put one of these engines on a cup of hot water and let it run, then put some ice on top and it will run FASTER. Positive proof that the faster the heat flows through the engine the better it operates, just like water flowing down hill to power a turbine. APPARENTLY,


There is a little problem however with this assumption in that it leads to a paradox.

If HEAT is a form of energy, then MORE heat FLOWING THROUGH THE ENGINE FASTER and back out of the engine into the sink or "cold reservoir" means, or logically SHOULD mean, that more heat is being LOST and heat is being lost FASTER. Heat that is LOST from the engine is energy that HAS NOT BEEN CONVERTED into mechanical POWER.

That a Stirling engine should have more power by dumping more heat into ice faster contradicts conservation of energy. That is, if heat really is a form of energy. So, maybe heat really is a fluid, just as Sadi Carnot wrote in his book in 1824. Maybe Tesla was wrong, and heat is NOT a form of energy that is CONVERTED but heat is actually just a "fluid" that runs through the engine.

As a simple mechanic who just wanted to know how these engines REALLY WORK for no other reason than I wanted to build one, this became for me a conundrum. Should I design the engine to PASS HEAT THROUGH FASTER, or design the engine to RETAIN AND CONVERT HEAT, so the heat does not pass through the engine at all?

I needed to find a way to figure out the TRUE NATURE of heat itself. Is heat a fluid that flows like water as Carnot believed or is it energy that gets converted as Tesla believed? Or, is heat actually something else altogether?

So to figure this out, I did some experimenting. A LOT OF EXPERIMENTING.

MY conclusion after so many years of experimentation and carful observation is that heat is indeed ENERGY that is CONVERTED by a Stirling engine and the heat DOES NOT transfer through a Stirling heat engine to the "cold reservoir" or "heat sink" AT ALL, in fact, it appears instead that these engines take energy from the high temperature side of the engine and use that energy to "PUMP" heat BACKWARDS, taking heat from the COLD SIDE OF THE ENGINE and transferring that heat back over to the hot side where BOTH sources of heat can then be utilized in power production.

The so-called "COLD" side of a Stirling engine is not really cold, but rather, it is just a little LESS HOT. But it is still a source of heat/energy.

A Stirling engine utilizes BOTH sources of heat. That is, in essence, a Stirling engine is ALREADY, BOTH a HEAT ENGINE AND a HEAT PUMP.

Working as a heat pump the Stirling engine is transferring heat in the opposite direction from the assumed direction of "heat flow", that is, the engine is "pumping heat" from the cold side back over to the hot side, there the two sources of heat are combined and then together converted into power output.

Here is a somewhat simplified illustration of the Stirling engine cycle, with the engine running on ice:

55709

At the peak of the compression phase, as shown above, the heat input from the bottom "hot" plate is combined together with the "heat of compression". That is, the hot plate is exposed letting heat into the engine and SIMULTANEOUSLY the air inside the engine is being COMPRESSED by the power piston elevating the temperature even further. This concentration of heat and pressure results in rapid expansion of the air inside the engine which expansion force is utilized, converted to "work" or power output.

The next phase is the expansion phase:


55710

At the height of the expansion phase the heat source is covered/blocked by the "displacer" which acts as an insulator preventing any heat from entering into the engine. As the heated gas expands, transferring energy to the crankshaft of the engine and flywheel the air inside the engine loses energy and as a result of losing energy in the form of WORK, the air cools. Because the energy has been converted into MOMENTUM when all the energy that has been transferred into the engine as heat is entirely used up, having been converted into work, the MOMENTUM of the piston and flywheel allows the expansion and conversion of energy to continue further so that the air inside the engine loses even more energy and becomes that much COLDER. In fact, the air inside the engine becomes so cold that at full expansion, the air inside the engine becomes COLDER than the supposed "Sink" or cold side temperature. What must occur therefore, is some heat is transferred from the cold or LESS HOT side of the engine back into the cold expanded air within the engine.

This absorbed ADITIONAL HEAT taken from the cold side is then contained within the air inside the engine and during the next compression cycle contributes to and is combined together with the heat that enters the engine when the "displacer" lifts allowing additional heat to enter into the engine from the hotter side.

In other words, when a Stirling engine is "running on ice" it is not only utilizing the surrounding ambient or atmospheric or environmental heat, but it is also pulling some heat out of the ice as well, because during the height of the expansion phase the air inside the engine is COLDER than the so-called "cold reservoir" the heat is supposed to be "flowing" into. Heat cannot travel from cold to hot, so if it is colder inside the engine than outside the engine heat can only travel from the ICE INTO the engine rather than out from the engine and into the ice.

These statements are simply sober and objective observations.

These observations however, fly in the face of the conventional wisdom about how these engines operate, and in fact contradict what many believe to be "established science".

My intent in carrying out my various experiments was never to support Tesla's ideas nor contradict the "facts" of "established science" or the "laws" of thermodynamics.

My only interest was to determine conclusively, through actual experiment, how Stirling engines operate so that I might be able to construct a working engine.

[Tom Booth]

Generally speaking, though, the heat pumping action carried out by a Stirling engine is next to non-existent, so slight as to be virtually indetectable and easily overlooked.

I had originally suspected the possibility back in 2010. These suspicions were highly speculative, nevertheless I voiced my suspicion on the Stirling Engine Forum I had recently joined: https://www.stirlingengineforum.boydhouse.com/viewtopic.php?p=1225&sid=d9b77180ccee423189cf78773248a03f#p1225

The response was quite negative, perhaps even hostile. It would be many years before I had the opportunity to test the theory.

As stated in 2010 my theory at that time was: "If more heat is extracted as work than what actually reaches the heat sink, then theoretically, insulating the cold end of the displacer chamber against the external ambient temperatures would improve engine efficiency."


In other words, I thought that because the engine was converting heat into work INTERNALLY so that the air inside the engine lost energy becoming cold, WITHOUT TRANSFERING HEAT TO THE SINK, then insulating the "cold" or LESS HOT side of the engine might have the same effect as placing ice on top of the engine allowing an increase in the temperature differential. If allowed to do so, by blocking heat from entering the engine THROUGHT THE COLDER OR LESS HOT SIDE, maybe the engine would COOL ITSELF through the CONVERSION of heat into work.

Anyway, ten years later, in July 2020 I kind of jokingly got around to actually carrying out the experiment. By that time, I was certain that EVERYONE had been right and insulating the top cold side of the engine would cause the engine to overheat and stall, but I decided to video record the experiment anyway. Then I could post the video to the Stirling engine forum, and we could all have a good laugh.

Well, as it turned out, the engine did not overheat and stall immediately. In fact, it continued running, covered with insulation, for another two and a half hours. Not only that, but it ran at a higher RPM than I had ever seen the engine run previously and also seemed to have more power. Later experiments confirmed that the top of the engine was not getting hot under the insulation, in fact, if anything the top of the engine was slightly cooler than room temperature.

I posted the video of these unexpected results to the Stirling Engine forum anyway. This was that first video/experiment.

fFByKkGr5bE


Many more experiments followed, trying to tighten things up and figure out what I might be doing "wrong".

In time, I also posted the videos to various science and physics forums to see what the "experts" might think.

In general, I was ridiculed and attacked as someone promoting "perpetual motion" and for that, banned. The fact is, I was not "promoting" anything, one way or the other. I just thought the real scientists could help figure out what was going on better than the mechanics and hobbyists on the model Stirling engine forum.

Anyway, in time, I figured there might be ways to "tweak" a Stirling engine so that the SELF REFRIGERATING EFFECT would be more apparent. So I made some slight modifications to one of my model engines.

Apparently, the modifications worked, because I was able to record a lower temperature on the top of the engine, without insulation on top.


P11q-BAhvqk


I did insulate the sides to prevent heat from escaping out from the sides of the engine. Needless to say, according to generally accepted heat engine theory, heat should have been POURING OUT OF the top of that engine at a temperature MUCH HIGHER than the surrounding ambient.

The modifications I could make to this small model were quite limited and crude. I think if I were able to build an engine specifically designed for the purpose, a much greater "self-refrigerating" effect could be made apparent. If done well enough and also running the engine "on ice" it might even be possible, I think, to produce sufficient self-cooling of the engine to keep the ice frozen and keep the engine running indefinitely.

That a Stirling engine is capable of Self-cooling has been observed previously by Kenneth Rauan for example:


PDF: https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/955-rauen-proell-effect-article-ie-52-pdf


7lBDve65dAo

[Tom Booth]

Another approach someone suggested, which I at first dismissed because of the notorious inefficiency of Peltier devices is to use a Peltier device as a "Heat Pump" to run a Stirling engine.

I was thinking in particular about Tesla's ambition to use a heat pump to create COLD in order to run a heat engine on environmental ambient heat.

Peltier devices, however, are deemed "inefficient" in terms of cooling capacity primarily because they produce an enormous amount of "waste heat".

Not only does the Peltier device MOVE perhaps 2X more heat energy than it uses in electrical energy input, but the electrical energy input is also turned into heat in the process. So the heat that needs to be dissipated includes both the concentrated ambient heat being MOVED in the manner of a heat pump but also the electrical energy input added to that heat which is "recycled" back into heat.

Not only that, but at certain controlled low power electrical input levels, even for cooling, the COP of a Peltier device can be quite high.


QWM-D_KB4o8


But the possibility of using a Peltier device as a HEAT SOURCE for a heat engine is particularly intriguing. Let's say, for 10 watts of electrical input a Peltier device might put out as much as 40 to 50 watts of "waste heat".

For a Stirling engine, this "waste heat" is not "WASTE" but FUEL.

In fact, one of the "problems" with a Peltier device is that they produce so much "waste heat" in the process of cooling or refrigeration that if the enormous amount of "waste heat" is not quickly removed using a large heat sink and cooling fan the device will quickly burn itself up.

Used as a cooling device, such large amounts of excess heat is what accounts for the perceived "Low efficiency", used as a "HEAT PUMP" for supplying heat to a Stirling engine, however, tremendous amounts of excess heat might not be a "problem".

For one thing, Stirling engines are very frugal in their heat use, so the Peltier might only need to be powered on intermittently. The "excess" heat could be transferred to an "internal heat sink" or "thermal battery" inside the engine that could act as an intermediary to maintain a constant level of heat input to the engine.

The DISPLACER inside the engine would act as a kind of COOLING FAN keeping the air inside the engine moving so as to remove heat from the hot side of the Peltier device. Some heat sensor/switch could be used to switch the Peltier device on and off as necessary to prevent overheating.

So, now, theoretically at least, not only do we have the Peltier device concentrating and MOVING large amounts of ambient heat into the Stirling engine, but the mechanical and electrical energy used from the engine to accomplish this is being reclaimed and recirculated as heat and sent back into the engine.

Is there room in this setup for EXCESS energy output?

55715


Whatever the case, this is a rather simple setup that should be easy and inexpensive to test.

[Tom Booth]

Well. I just sent away for a "SP1848-27145 High Temperature Peltier TEG Module Thermoelectric Generator 150°C"

Apparently, from the description details, these can withstand up to 250°C before being damaged.

I already have several "normal" Peltier chips for refrigeration I was experimenting with, but those are rated for only something like 60°C

Most small model LTD type Stirling engines are designed to operate at just under 100°C but I have found that with some modification in the material construction these little engines can withstand MUCH HIGHER temperatures and even generate useable power output.


eGiJZzIkquA


These types of Peltier chips are intended mainly for generating electricity from a heat source so are designed to take some heat, but I have no real idea how they might perform in this particular application (generating heat as a heat pump). Seems worth a try anyway. At over 100°C a water bath might be used as a perhaps more practical "heat battery" to both protect the Peltier device from accidental overheating and also to store any excess heat it might produce and help to eliminate heat fluctuations.

I'm far from any kind of expert in Peltier module selection so any suggestions for a good chip to use for this experiment is welcome.

[Tom Booth]

The various arguments against this sort of thing based on thermodynamic "Laws" (i.e. "Carnot efficiency Limit") are IMO very weak (actually, utterly ridiculous)

Apart from the apparent spurious origin of the "Carnot efficiency limit equation" which could not have originated with Carnot, the equation itself contradicts Carnot in that it does not take available heat transfer surface area into consideration.

It is generally well recognized and agreed upon that an LTD type Stirling engine (that has a lot of surface area for heat transfer due to the large diameter if the heat exchange plates) that can operate on the "heat of the hand" or even lower temperature differentials, (even as little as 0.5 degrees C) is EXTREEMLY EFFICIENT able to convert an almost imperceptible amount of heat into mechanical work output.

According to the "Carnot Efficiency" formula calculations, however, BASED ONLY ON TEMPERATURE AND NEGLECTING HEAT TRANSFER AREA the "maximum possible efficiency" of such an incredibly efficient engine would be:

η = (Th - Tc)/Th x 100
η = (300.5 - 300)/300.5 x 100
η = 0.5/300.5 x 100
η = 0.00166 x 100
η = 0.166389351% efficiency

That's an impossibly low efficiency for an "extremely efficient" heat engine

Something doesn't add up.

All this (the "Carnot" efficiency limit calculations) really means is that the "caloric" (an obsolete conception from 1820) has "fallen" 0.5 degrees which is 0.166389351% of the "fall" down to absolute zero from "Th", 300.5 on the kelvin scale.

0.5 is 0.166389351% of 300.5

In other words, the more efficient a Stirling engine ACTUALLY IS in REALITY, (the smaller the temperature difference it can actually utilize), the lower will be its calculated "Carnot efficiency".

Obviously, if say 0.05 joules of heat can be transferred into the engine for every square centimeter of surface area at a given temperature, an engine with 1 sq centimeter of surface area for heat transfer is not going to transfer as much heat as an engine with 25 square centimeters of surface area.

[Tom Booth]

Many of us share a keen interest in limitless, affordable, or free energy. Over the years, members have explored various approaches, and to my knowledge, the CIA has never shown up on their doorstep. (...) I recommend that you take a look at Wade Frasier's thread titled - WADE FRAZIER: A Healed Planet (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?10672-WADE-FRAZIER-A-Healed-Planet&p=91260&viewfull=1#post91260)

Actually Wade is one of those who says that the CIA (among other agencies) took swift action to "shut us down" when he and Dennis Lee were making progress towards combining Lee's Heat Pump together with a Heat Engine to produce a "free energy" device that could convert atmospheric heat into useable power.

See this interview for example:

O7g5HPnj9Pc (around timestamp 11:00)

[Tom Booth]

While on the way to the grocery store yesterday, I stopped at a yard sale and happened upon this "Shake flashlight" being sold for $1

IT seems like a good one. An actual strong magnet and it generates power. Apparently there have been "fake" versions on the market. I did get burned once. I sent for what was advertised as a "shake flashlight" but instead received an ordinary flashlight with batteries that were leaking acid. I wrote a complaint, and I believe I received a refund, if I remember right. but it was a long time ago.

I had considered using these type flashlights for parts for a Stirling engine linear generator before, and have several different brands on the shelf in the workshop but just never got around to actually doing anything with them. Most of them do not actually come apart as easily as this one did.

Finding one of these flashlights just now, while planning this experiment seemed like serendipity so I bought it to use for this experiment.

This find also reminded me to stop at the dollar store.

The rather large liner generator from the flashlight would require a bigger engine than any of the models I currently own, so I needed something to make an engine out of. I found this "Lazy Susan" type snack tray that seemed like it would do the trick. A $3 investment.

The other stuff: sheet of acrylic "plexiglass", heat sinks, and a variety of Peltier chips I already had kicking around the shop. though the Peltier chips I have are quite small very low voltage chips, it might be fun to see what they can do while waiting for the larger Peltier device I sent for to arrive.

I think I also still have some larger Peltier devices that I got out of some old mini-refrigerators. These little solid-state refrigerators often end up in someone's junk pile, so if I see one on the curb I'll pick it up and strip it down for the parts; small fan, heat sink and Peltier chip, switch and circuit board.


149rZDObpQ8


Using an acrylic bowl as a Stirling Engine body goes against the "Carnot theory" in that a heat engine is supposed to need to "reject" lots of heat and acrylic would tend to RETAIN heat as it is not very heat conductive, but I was inspired by this little engine, which I call "the impossible heat engine" because it seems to run quite well, regardless, in seeming violation of the Second Law"


lx1tet8aHJU


Possibly I could also try modifying one of these little acrylic engines, If I can find a smaller cylindrical magnet to use as a piston and then just wrap a coil of magnet wire around the cylinder.

To make doubly sure that "waste heat" was not escaping from the top of the engine and a "sink" was not needed, I covered the top of the engine with a silica Aerogel blanket:


i9nz0vt7eQA


When the engine still wouldn't "overheat" and stop running, I took additional measures to prevent possible air currents or drafts from cooling the top of the engine:


l2XcnN6QdfA


The engine would continue running this way hour after hour after hour, when according to conventional heat engine theory it should not be able to complete a single revolution without "rejecting" 90% or so of the heat input to the so-called "cold reservoir".

At any rate, using a non-heat conductive all acrylic bowl for a Stirling engine body rather than a heat dissipating metal plate does not hinder the operation of the engine and being transparent, we can see what's going on inside which is nice.

[Tom Booth]

I visited several of the old Science and Physics forums I used to frequent years ago, but I am still banned from most, but I did find one that I could still sign into and start a thread on this topic there.

I'm not entirely sure if the Second Law / Carnot Limit is supposed to be applicable to a SOLID STATE device, like a Peltier, so I'm interested to see the response of the Scientific community there to the idea of this project.

https://www.scienceforums.com/topic/98604-self-running-stirling-engine-peltier-heat-pump-experiment/

[Tom Booth]

Well I guess it had to happen sooner or later:

https://www.scienceforums.com/topic/98604-self-running-stirling-engine-peltier-heat-pump-experiment/page/2/#findComment-465174

My thread on the science forum on this topic has been demoted and moved down into the basement or "crackpots" area in this case called: "Strange Claims Forum".

It always seems to be the forum moderator on these Science and Physics forums that turns out to be a staunch protector and defender of this "Carnot efficiency Limit Formula".

Of course, not one of my factual statements, nor the results of any of my (or others) video recorded and easily replicable experiments has been objectively considered or addressed, nor the historical facts denied or countered, such as the alleged origin of this "efficiency limit formula" from "Carnot" requiring use of the Kelvin temperature scale, which did not yet exist in Carnot's lifetime.

Also, my intention is to simply carry out an experiment, not debate theory, but this moderator presented his objections to the experiment itself, bringing up the "Carnot" so-called "efficiency limit" so-called "formula" along with The Second Law of thermodynamics.

Typically, when easily replicable empirical evidence cannot be dismissed offhand or explained away by simply referencing an apparent "violation" of the second "LAW", rational discourse is abandoned and heavy handed "moderation" resorted to.

Edit (Sept. 7)

Things are further heating up. My thread has now been demoted further to the "silly claims" section. Sorry to say, I cannot actually change the outcome of any of my experiments, just because some people don't like it or it doesn't parallel their personal expectations. They are all on video. Not all, but at least representative samples. Not to say there can't be some error, instrument failure or misinterpretation or oversight, which is why I invite and highly encourage any efforts at replication.

Strange to say, that seems to be the last thing some of these "scientists" (Carnot efficiency Limit/second law advocates in particular) are interested in.

[Tom Booth]

Ah, well.

Two weeks suspension:

55987

In my experience, this seems to be the only "crackpot" or unorthodox, "silly" or whatever idea or theory that receives the same heavy handed treatment and censorship across all the major science and physics forums.

For a while, I thought maybe this Science forum was going to be different, but as it turns out, no. They all seem to follow the same script.

First, vague "well meaning" discouragement. "Sorry to say, your idea is quite interesting, but the mathematics (Carnot efficiency Limit formula) and the LAWS of NATURE, (Second law of thermodynamics) show that it would be a big waste of time and money." "The second law shows us that you can't win, the Carnot Limit shows you can't break even".

Several forums will issue a warning at this point and possibly lock the thread. "Discussion of 'perpetual motion' on this forum is against forum [RULES] <- link, so this topic is closed".

There is maybe a 50/50 chance the topic will be permitted to linger on for some time, giving the thread started an opportunity to "see the light".

I get the impression that often you will first be dealing with an "ordinary" moderator, but if the usual discouragement tactics do not effectively dissuade the would-be inventor or experimenter from his or her wayward path a "specialist" is brought in.

That seems to have occured in this case. At first the moderator was hesitant, apologetic, very reluctant.

Then there seemed to be a very marked change in personality followed by insults, intimidation, threats, and clear evidence of having conducted an in depth sweep of the internet for more information regarding the case. "No wonder you have been banned from all the other science forums" and additional personal details not evident in the thread.

In my case, of course, this is not hard to do, as I always post on all forums and social media using my real name.

You can question E=MC^2, certainly Tesla and other "fringe" scientists are open to unrestrained insults and ridicule, such may even be encouraged or engaged in by the moderators themselves. All other aspects of scientific questioning and debate are ignored or tolerated but don't go poking your finger at the house of cards known as the "Carnot efficiency Limit formula" or start messing around with the idea of combining a heat engine with a heat pump.

If you persist, you may soon be dealing with more than the shame and inconvenience and injustice of having your topic and your person ridiculed, insulted, doxed, censored and banned from an internet forum or social media. Put a working model on public display or actually try to market such a device and there may very likely be real world consequences.

Most known, unworkable "perpetual motion" devices are left alone. That comprises probably 99% of gravity engines, magnetic motors, "zero point" generators etc. etc. They do not work so do not pose a threat.

Thermodynamic devices utilizing atmospheric or environmental heat, however, it seems, receive close scrutiny, monitoring and what seems like sustained, organized censorship and suppression.

[Tom Booth]

Paralleling my experiences of, I'll say apparent organized suppression, this page from Wade Frazier's account makes for some interesting reading:


...marrying heat engines and heat pumps to do FE? Call me skeptical. But we never got to find out, as we were wiped out.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?10672-WADE-FRAZIER-A-Healed-Planet&p=1093044

Unfortunately, these accounts only contribute another layer of indirect "suppression" by example. Of course such examples are going to dissuade and discourage others, nobody wants this kind of thing to happen to them.

"Making an example" of someone, is, of course, another very powerful means of suppression that today I think, pervades our collective unconscious. I can't count the number of times I've been told in the course of casual conversation on this subject "they will kill you".

I always laughed off or shrugged off such comments. That is not something I ever wanted to believe. Anyway, if it were to happen, the way I look at it, that would be their karma. I'm only interested in the truth, and you can see the truth unfolding on that Science forum.

I sometimes wonder, is it my fault? Maybe I bring all these bannings from all the Science and Physics forums on myself?

Well, certainly I'm not trying to avoid it by compromising or backing down. I feel it is my responsibility to relate the results of my research and experiments with honesty and integrity and with as much detail and thoroughness as possible.

Starting right from the beginning, often as soon as I have an IDEA for an experiment, which is true in this case. This solid state Peltier heat pump / heat engine combination is "just an idea". So why post it on the science forum at all?

Well, for one thing, the thread on that forum, assuming the statistics are not being manipulated, has had over 9K views already. That is not personal vanity, that is nearly ten thousand other people who now have the same IDEA, a very cheap and easy implementation of one theoretically possible means for realizing Tesla's vision of pulling "free energy" straight from the surrounding environment.

As far as I'm concerned, or the way it looks to me, I've been suspended from that science forum for "thought crime". For simply having a theory. For questioning supposedly "established science"

I mean, among other things, the reason given for the suspension includes:


If you return (..) and continue to reject the Carnot Cycle and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, you will not be welcome here.

So... That appears to be saying, if I persist in my "wrong think" I can expect to be permanently banned. It is hard to believe or for me to fully accept that such blatant, unapologetic policing of a mere thought, theory or opinion has now become the norm in science, or at least on all the major online science and physics forums.

I might however also point out that I also said on that forum: "I might also mention that this theory of coherent, resonant oscillations in connection with a gas "working fluid" appears to contradict the kinetic theory of gases that assumes gas molecules to be in constant random motion and not interacting and with no intermolecular forces of attraction or repulsion between them."

No mention is made of this. So, as said before, it is perfectly fine, apparently, to question the kinetic theory of gases and many many other accepted theories without repercussions of any kind.

This rampant, rather rabbid "thought policing" appears to be very selective, zeroing in, almost exclusively on this one rather obscure area of little interest to anyone, the "Carnot cycle".

[Tom Booth]

The so-called "Carnot cycle", if researched in some depth, did not actually originated with Carnot. It was well known, and actually only really makes sense in the context of steam engines.

What the earlier steam engineers discovered is that the steam engine could be made much more efficient if the steam input into the power cylinder were "cut off" early and the engine allowed to complete the power stroke by momentum.

In effect, this turned the heat engine into a combination heat engine and expansion REFRIGERATOR.

Using this method, the steam would cool and re-condense and the condensed water could be recirculated back into the boiler.

Carnot merely received word of such a cycle second hand giving a brief outline of it in his book, without crediting the earlier steam engineers who actually discovered it through trial and error.

Of course at the end of such a cycle in a steam engine the liquid water must be removed from the engine cylinder and fresh steam introduced. This condensed liquid may still contain considerably heat (or not, of course the coldest practical temperature the condensed water could reach would be zero Celsius). Regardless, the liquid cannot remain in the engine.

Carnot adhered to the Caloric theory that heat itself is also a kind of liquid, so in his effort to universalise his theory of heat to any and all types and kinds of heat engines, naturally he assumed that at the end of any cycle, this "liquid" heat would also require removal.

A Stirling type external combustion engine, however, is hermetically sealed, and we know now that heat is not a liquid at all but energy, that follows the law of conservation of energy.

The Stirling cycle, for any real world practical Stirling type engine is akin to the so-called "Carnot cycle" in that the heat input is "cut off" early, and the cycle allowed to complete by momentum.

The net result is that during the first part of the cycle the engine acts as a heat engine proper, but after "cut off" heat input stops and the remainder of the cycle completes the operation in the manner of an expansion REFRIGERATOR.

The difference from the steam engine is that there is no liquid or partial liquid in the form of water vapor or steam introduced into the engine and at the end of the cycle, no liquid condensate containing any remaining heat requiring removal. Also, since the working fluid is a gas, "refrigeration" is not limited to the freezing point of water. A Stirling engine, charged with the right gas such as helium, can reach cryogenic temperatures, potentially a hundred degrees or more below freezing.

The colder the temperature the engine can reach, the more heat it is able to take in and convert per cycle.

As the engine is acting as a combination heat engine and expansion refrigeration system (i.e. a HEAT PUMP) this opens up the possibility for the engine to actually utilize more heat energy than what is directly supplied. This is not a violation of conservation of energy. The engine when acting as ENGINE coverts the SUPPLIED heat into power, and when completing the cycle by momentum and acting as a HEAT PUMP it is able to gather to itself additional heat energy directly from the surrounding environment, like a heat pump, at an "efficiency" or COP that is greater than one, or so-called "over unity".

This is why one will be hard pressed to find any advanced Stirling engine on the market. Manufacture of advanced Stirling engines is being heavily restricted. Limited primarily to space applications, the military, and of course, most egregiously, to applications confined and restricted for use by the oil and gas industry.

[Tom Booth]

Some progress and explanations:


ibRckCC2D9w

The hollowed out sections in the Styrofoam are for weight reduction. (The Styrofoam will act as the "displacer" which the engine needs to be able to lift so should be as light as possible, though once lifted, most of the energy used to lift the displacer is actually returned to the engine when the displacer drops back down by gravity.)

I found a second canister that is 9 inches in diameter, fit inside the larger original 10 inch canister will leave a 1/2 inch gap between the two to incorporate a high efficiency regenerator.

I have been making regenerators based on this research paper for several years and have seen very good results:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335511720_Stirling_engine_regenerators_How_to_attain_over_95_regenerator_effectiveness_with_sub-regenerators_and_thermal_mass_ratios

This type of sidewall regenerator is stationary so does not require lifting by the engine.

I also found another "shake flashlight" with a larger generator coil and stronger magnet that is also easy to disassemble.

[Tom Booth]

This is kind of interesting.

I've been thinking for a while that what I really need for this project is one of those very low RPM "hub motors" to use as a generator for the Stirling engine. Those hub motors are used on some electric bikes and scooters.

So this morning, my wife mentions that we are out of butter, so I take a walk up town, buy a lump of butter at the coop and start back home.

Normally I would probably just jump in the truck and go straight to the store and back, but today I decided to get some fresh air and exercise as it's a nice sunny day.

On the way back home while walking past the Laundromat I noticed one of those "Self Balancing Scooters" sticking out of one of the garbage cans.

56005

Sure enough, two nice very low RPM hub motors.

There are dozens of YouTube videos on how to turn these things into hand cranked generators, wind generators, bike driven generators etc. Basically just spin the wheel and it's a generator, though with AC output. A rectifier can turn that into the DC needed for a Peltier.

[Tom Booth]

A lot of the videos show how to rewire the "hoverboard" generator to get higher voltage, but high voltage isn't really an advantage in this application.

What I may do though, is take out the bearings and remove, what I assume will be thick bearing grease. The bearings are meant to take the weight of a person.

Here though, there will be no weight on the bearings and the thick grease only produces unnecessary drag.

I think I will try the linear generator from the flashlight first and if that works, the bigger generator can just be used for excess power output. (Wishful thinking I suppose but who knows? Has anyone ever tried it without having their prototype seized?)

[Tom Booth]

One feature I may be incorporating into this engine would be the displacer counterbalance used by James Senft in the P-19 LTD Stirling engine.

Some online depictions of this engine are, however, inaccurate.

Here for example:

https://animatedengines.com/ltdstirling.html

The linkage in that animation, though having a superficial resemblance, is different and the counter balance is missing.

Here is a depiction of the actual P-19 with the displacer counterbalance mechanism from Senft's book: Mechanical Efficiency of Heat Engines:

56020

The thumbscrew on the right can be adjusted so that the weight of the displacer can be perfectly counterbalanced.

[Tom Booth]

I've gotten the displacer hooked up and functioning today:


kGDLNP2z4yg


The ports in the top and bottom of the inner smaller canister are to direct air flow through the stationary sidewall regenerator.

(The regenerator matrix has not yet been installed)

As far as I know, this type of sidewall regenerator in an LTD low temperature Stirling is my own invention, though not uncommon in high temperature engines.

Often if an LTD engine incorporates a regenerator at all it will be part of the displacer, so will have to be lifted by the engine along with the displacer, this presents weight issues, so such regenerators are made as light and thin as possible, which makes them relatively ineffective.

It is a bit more complicated to build an engine with an inner and outer shell for a dedicated, stationary sidewall regenerator, but this eliminates the weight issue, so the regenerator can be made very robust and effective, with sufficient layering (sub regenerators) to maximize regenerator efficiency.

The ports keep the air flowing in a straight line in a more organized way helping to prevent mixing of the hot and cold air as compared to regular LTD engines with no regenerator where the displacer just tends to slosh the air up and down creating a lot of turbulence and mixing.

Heat that becomes mixed with cold air inside the engine inevitably ends up as "waste heat".

A well constructed regenerator goes a long way towards keeping the hot side of the engine hot and the cold side of the engine cold, increasing efficiency.

I'm using nylon fishing line as the lifter or "connecting rod" for the displacer, mainly because it is very lightweight but also because it only requires a small pinhole to pass the fishing line through the engine housing to connect it to the flywheel. This helps to reduce chances of any air leakage as well as reducing friction.

[Tom Booth]

This will be useful!

Many of the very small cheap mini fridges don't have overheat protection on the Peltier chip, but I just tore down one of the mini fridges I just picked up on the side of the road I think about a week ago, set out as trash.

When I plugged it in it didn't work, but as I took it apart and tested the useful components, all the parts still work, a nice large Peltier, fan, switch, etc. and this was attached to the side of the hot side heat sink.


56033


A self resetting thermal overheat protection switch.

The temperature setting is 85° C which is a little low, but as it is not directly attached to the thermocouple but to the heat sink it should be fine. The Peltier should be able to handle 100°C or higher.

Anyway, this will simplify things. I thought I might have to sit there with a thermocouple and a manual switch and babysit the thing turning the current to the Peltier on and off manually if it started getting too hot. This will allow automatic temperature control and hands free operation.

When and if the Peltier overheats and switches off, I figure the shake flashlight circuitry has a condenser to store power while charging up the flashlight when the flashlight is switched off, so I can just keep that and when the Peltier switches off the "excess" power will just accumulate in the condenser, or maybe it's a rechargeable battery. Whatever, I haven't really taken a good look at the shake flashlight circuit board but it has a battery or capacitor or something that charges up when the light is switched off.

[Tom Booth]

It looks like the bimetal overheat cut-off switch is defective after all. I was experimenting with wiring things up and doing some testing and it worked fine, turning on and off a few times, then it got stuck in the ON position. Probably could just as easily got stuck in the OFF position.

Probably just as well. They are not very expensive and are available in different temperature ranges.

https://www.amazon.com/Hilitchi-Thermostat-Temperature-Assortment-Appliances/dp/B07KF3KN18/ref=pd_aw_subss_m_sccl_3/132-2139971-4798109?pd_rd_r=e57da10f-aed4-4a64-a2b9-69dffa542048&pd_rd_wg=Xco1N&pd_rd_w=dHNBU&pd_rd_i=B07KF3KN18&psc=1

[Tom Booth]

A bit more progress:


6r_HJ7H_PvA



Now I'm wondering if the overheat protection switches are designed to handle DC current. I was only using a small 12 V battery for testing, but actually it is possible to weld with a 12-volt battery. AC is easy on switches as the change in direction of the current breaks the current flow, but DC can tend to arch across a switch gap and "weld" the switch, damaging it.

EDIT:

This type might be a better bet, in looking for thermal protection switches rated for DC I keep seeing these, but not the others.

The descriptions explicitly mention they are DC rated for up to 24 volt DC 3 Amps.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/315112902873

The others can probably handle the low voltage low amp DC but may tend to burn out faster.

[Tom Booth]

BTW, not sure I'm supposed to do this, but thanks for all the "Thank You" 's from everyone who has been following this thread. It is nice to know the thread is being read and appreciated. And also, you're all welcome. It is my pleasure to be here.

I think I can safely say, this is the best, friendliest, most relevant, significant, etc. (I've run out of words; all around great) forum I've ever been on.

[Tom Booth]

I've started/now finished, stripping down the shake flashlights using a band saw (very carefully).

56075

I did some testing with my volt meter.

After giving the stripped down linear generators a few shakes, I tested the voltage of the stored power, it was some very low number, like 0.5 volts, then the reading quickly dropped to zero. But the light was still on.

Then I realized the meter was set to AC current and the power is stored as DC, so I switched to DC.

First using the lowest setting, I couldn't get a reading.

I put it up to 2 volts, and same thing. The meter seemed to "stick" at 1 volt, regardless of how long I charged the little supercap.

Turns out, I was too pessimistic about the voltage output.

After moving the meter setting to 20 volts I got clear consistent readings around 3.5 volts after a brief charging using a few shakes.

As it turns out, this could be ideal, the "sweat spot" for operating a Peltier at maximum COP at a low temperature differential.

56076

So, I held the Peltier wires to the flashlight contacts and the LED went dim, then quickly went out

I disconnected the Peltier and the light came back on. A few more tries and the light went out altogether, the capacitor was drained.

Doing some research, the Peltier has a minimum "turn on" current requirement. Looking at the above chart, at voltages just under the max COP voltage, the COP quickly plummets.

To test WHILE CHARGING, I'd need to solder the Peltier wires or move the magnet some other way.

Also the flashlight linear generator is designed for relatively high voltage, minimum to light an LED, but the amperage is intentionally rather low, to keep the back EMF low so the magnet can pass through the coils easily with just a "shake".

Anyway, I came up with an engine redesign.

The problem, I think, is that the Stirling engine should be able to generate ample power, but one shake flashlight may be too wimpy, even at maximum output.

I also have, or had, some ferrofluid I was planning on sealing the power cylinder with, but have been looking high and low for days and just haven't been able to find it, so the gap between the magnet and power cylinder has become a bigger issue.

So I've decided I will probably use a diaphragm piston for this engine which provides a perfect air tight seal and is often used with "ultra LTD" type Stirling engines that can operate on a fractional temperature difference , as little as 0.5°C.

The diaphragm piston can then drive a kind of seesaw with two generators, or even four or more. Theoretically, an additional "sea saw with more generators could be added.

This solves multiple potential problems. By using at least two generators the weight of the heavy magnets can be counterbalanced. Also the issue of figuring out a way to get an air tight seal is eliminated. Potential amperage can be at least doubled or even quadrupled, and construction, is, I think, actually simplified

[Tom Booth]

This looks like it could be a very good book. He covers several of the issues I've been bringing up for years, such as Carnot being WRONG in concluding that heat is Caloric that goes through a heat engine rather than energy that is converted or used as "FUEL" and consumed by the engine, in several of his brief videos on the history of thermodynamics.

So I left this comment on his channel last night. I am seriously interested in seeing his response as he has obviously researched the subject in great depth and appears to be an independent thinker not afraid to tell it like it is.

56079

[Tom Booth]

Some of his videos (plugs for his book) well worth watching:

nJ5-Svoog8o

PcXJF5jc5Oc

[Tom Booth]

The key takeaway from the previous video is this:


56085


This is different from the modern versions of such heat engine diagrams seen today which have an additional downward pointing arrow showing the "flow" of "waste heat" into the so-called "cold reservoir".

As yet, (in 1850) the "second Law" was barely a blip on the screen and not formally established until years later.

Later, in 1900, in his article, Tesla refuted the Second Law, saying as heat is actually energy, the complete conversion of of heat into work WAS POSSIBLE, so that "no heat at all" would pass through the engine.

Researching about heat engines 10 years or so ago as an engine mechanic just looking to build a Stirling engine for my own personal use, I came across this historical debate. It would be critical in terms of how I would design the Stirling engine. Not being a "scientist", though the son of a chemist and being very familiar with the scientific discipline and scientific method, I really had no skin in the game as far as one theory over another, my inquiry into the subject was purely a practical matter. Should the engine accommodate HEAT FLOW THROUGH to dispose of "waste heat" or not?

If there actually was no "waste heat" to be "disposed of" and heat is actually consumed within the engine, then providing a "sink" and intentionally cooling the engine would make no sense as it would just be throwing away the engines FUEL!

Well I searched and searched and read all the literature I could and researched all the history and I could not find any historical records of this controversy having ever been conclusively resolved. Nobody ever proved Tesla wrong or right by any actual EXPERIMENT. Nobody ever proved the Second Law right or wrong BY ACTUAL EXPERIMENT.

It was all just conjecture and opinion and theory. Hypothetical.

Well I needed to resolve the issue for reasons of my own, the simple practicality of designing and building an engine based on either one principle or the other.

So I got some model Stirling engines and devised some experiments to see just how much "waste heat" there actually was passing through the engines and out the other side.

Well, as far as I was concerned, the results of all the various experiments were conclusive. There was no "waste heat". All the heat that actually enters into a Stirling engine is CONSUMED, and no heat at all passes through, just as Tesla said.

OK, so that was settled.

But just to get a second opinion, I decided to see what the people on the various Science and Physics forums thought about it, so I started threads and uploaded video of the various experiments and asked for input.

That was when all the trouble began.

I was labeled a "perpetual motion crackpot" my experiments "pseudoscience", disbelief and scorn to the point of hysteria. I was banned from one forum after another.

This all seemed very strange and entirely unexpected.

As far as I know, Tesla was the first to propose combining a heat pump with a heat engine to create a "Self-Actung-Engine" or virtual free energy generator that drew its "fuel" directly from the heat in the surrounding atmosphere.

My intention and goal was not to invent "perpetual motion" in any way shape or form. My only intention was to determine how best to build an engine for the highest possible energy output.

If that involved, or suggested the possibility or potential for a kind of "perpetual" self running ambient heat engine, well, that was interesting, and possibly important and a good thing to know, but personally, I was just planning on running the Stirling engine on the heat from my wood stove.

At this point in time, however, it has become an issue, bigger than just resolving an old historic scientific debate or disagreement, but it has become an issue of the application of the Scientific Method itself

What has the world come to when open scientific inquiry is so broadly censured?

What are we to make of this statement from a moderator of a Science forum:



If you return and continue to make unsubstantiated claims about "impossible" Stirling engine efficiency and continue to reject the Carnot Cycle and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, you will not be welcome here.

Reference (https://www.scienceforums.com/topic/98604-self-running-stirling-engine-peltier-heat-pump-experiment/page/3/#findComment-465208)

On not just one, but apparently ALL publicly accessible online Science and Physics forums, as well as a number of more general forums, this topic is completely Taboo.

And no, it isn't just me.

Just have a look around. It's written into the forum rules and applies to everyone, there are abruptly "locked" threads on the subject started by others all over the place, though they can be difficult to find as they are mostly all in some kind of "Junk" section of the forum and often don't appear in forum search results.

Give it a try. Find a Science/Physics forums, join it, and try starting a thread on the subject as an "experiment".

[Tom Booth]

OK, so what we have here, I suppose is a "conspiracy theory".

Granted,

But is it possible?

Was there any entity in existence in Tesla's day that tried to suppress Tesla's inventions, that still exists?

Tesla's article appeared in the 1900 issue of Century Magazine. I think maybe there is some significance in that, as Tesla wrote in a private letter that the article caused him "a world of trouble". He was not specific, but my guess is Standard Oil.

Consider for example this AI overview based on the prompt:


standard oil fight against electric lighting

AI Overview





While the founder of Standard Oil, John D. Rockefeller, did not directly fight against electric lighting, he did view the emerging technology as a significant threat to his dominance of the kerosene market. This created a direct conflict of interest between Standard Oil and the inventors pushing for the adoption of electric light, most notably Thomas Edison and George Westinghouse.

Why Standard Oil was concerned
Before the widespread adoption of electricity, kerosene—a key Standard Oil product—was the primary fuel used for household lighting.

Market dominance: Standard Oil held a near monopoly on the kerosene market through ruthless business tactics and vertical integration.

Impending threat: Thomas Edison's development of the practical incandescent lightbulb in 1879, and George Westinghouse's push for alternating current (AC) power, posed a direct threat to the massive kerosene lighting market.

Revolutionary shift: The ability to transmit electricity over long distances using AC power meant that homes and industries could be powered far away from oil sources, removing their reliance on kerosene.

The "War of the Currents"
The most notable conflict over electric lighting was the "War of the Currents" in the late 1880s, which pitted Thomas Edison's General Electric (GE) and his favored direct current (DC) system against George Westinghouse and Nikola Tesla's superior AC system. While Rockefeller was not a direct participant, his financial interests were aligned with the DC camp's campaign to discredit AC power.

During this period:
Edison's propaganda: Thomas Edison conducted a notorious public relations campaign to smear Westinghouse and AC power, including publicly electrocuting animals to demonstrate what he claimed were the dangers of high-voltage alternating current.

Weaponizing the electric chair: In a highly publicized move, Edison even promoted the use of AC for the newly invented electric chair, attempting to brand AC with the stigma of a painful, inhumane death. The first person executed by electric chair was killed with a Westinghouse AC generator.

The financial motive: The underlying motivation for Edison's desperate campaign was that Westinghouse's AC technology was far more efficient for long-distance power transmission and therefore posed a greater existential threat to Standard Oil's kerosene business. Edison's DC could only travel short distances from a power plant, making the electric grid less feasible and keeping some demand for kerosene.

The outcome
Despite Edison's and implicitly Standard Oil's efforts, the efficiency of AC power proved superior, and electric lighting eventually triumphed.

AC prevails: The decisive turning point was George Westinghouse winning the bid to electrify the 1893 Chicago World's Fair, which was a spectacular demonstration of the power and safety of AC electricity.

Rockefeller pivots: Fortunately for Rockefeller, his company did not collapse. The rise of the automobile created a new demand for gasoline, which was a previously discarded byproduct of oil refining. Standard Oil rapidly shifted its focus to this new and even more lucrative market, and Rockefeller became the richest man in the world.

[Tom Booth]

From AC electric lighting to an engine that doesn't require any gasoline.

What a nightmare that must have been for a company that had already been nearly destroyed by one of Tesla's inventions.

But Standard Oil was broken up.

Well, not really.

More like cloned.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Successors_of_Standard_Oil_Company

[Tom Booth]

But could "Big Oil" insert something like a bogus mathematical equation into the educational curriculum, bamboozling generations of scientists with some made up nonsense about heat engine efficiency?

Well, yeah, I think that is not only probable, but actually quite likely.

Here are a few articles about Big Oil's influence over academia:

https://www.exxonknews.org/p/big-oils-grip-on-academia

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06092024/todays-climate-fossil-fuels-funding-university

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/shell-bp-equinor-totalenergies-oxford-cambridge-bristol-ucl-big-oil-gas-fossil-fuels-158m/

Just a few articles on the subject picked at random from dozens more.

[Tom Booth]

Nothing more than semi-plausible speculation, maybe. I'm not even going to attempt to prove any of it. Don't know and don't care.

What I do know is my own experiments conducted on my own workbench directly testing this "Carnot efficiency Limit formula" using methods I devised myself and taking measurements with my own eyes and instruments.

This so-called "Carnot" mathematical ratio does not hold up experimentally. Not even close. There is no experimental outcome I can report on that supports it AT ALL.

All the experiments indicate this is a spurious, scientifically baseless equation with no credibility, no known historical basis or foundation in scientific history, falsely attributed to Carnot by who knows who or what that wanted to hide it's true origin in fairly modern history.

As far as I've been able to trace its origin, it began appearing in educational curriculum in the 1970's in textbooks approved for use by a US governmental agency. At any rate, it is clearly impossible that it originated with Carnot as it depends on, is based on, the Kelvin temperature scale.

I've taped every available resource to try and discover the actual true origin of this formula and the only response is to ban me from a discussion forum for having the audacity to ask the questions: where did this equation actually originated? Who discovered it? What experiments verified it, what year, by whom?

Basic questions we have the answer to when it comes to any other established scientific principle.

But this mysterious equation with no basis other than the debunked Caloric theory is pushed like crazy, repeated ad nauseum, declared to be ABSOLUTE and applicable to governing the "efficiency" of any and all engines ever built or that could possibly ever be built, constantly used on Internet discussion forums to put down "alternative" energy sources or any and all IDEAS for potential alternative energy sources of any and all descriptions.

Completely transparent, made up nonsense preached as the infallible word of the veritable god Carnot to be obeyed and believed in under penalty of excommunication and expulsion, not just from internet forums, but from the Scientific community at large.

Dare to question it or come up with an alternative theory and your paper will not be published, your funding will be withdrawn, your membership recinded, your reputation trampled upon and smeared, your life's work, career and livelihood ruined. All to uphold the ludicrous idea that a heat engine is just like a water wheel with the heat being "lowered down" by the engine. That is, the completely and thoroughly disproven caloric theory.

Who or what is pushing this so hard and so consistently for so long?

Personally, I don't care. Whoever or whatever it is is promoting a falsehood. A lie.

Anyone can check these facts and do their own experiments, nobody has to take my word for it.

This is just one more in a long long series of experiments that any tinkerer with a work bench should be able to replicate.

If it works, that is.

I don't yet know the outcome of the experiment, I never do. But those pushing this so-called "Carnot formula" so hard know, and will punish anyone who does not believe unquestioningly.

Am I exaggerating?

All I can say is try it?

Ask about it on a Science or physics forums and see how far you get.

[Tom Booth]

Here is a Graphical illustration of the "Carnot" universal (supposedly applicable to any and all engines) efficiency limit:


56093


The temperature differences have been arbitrarily chosen.

Mathematical calculations are not shown.

The first 7 columns use the exact same difference in temperature represented by the top of the red section (hottest temperature applied to the engine) "falling" down to the top of the blue section (Lowest temperature at the engines "sink").

Columns 2, 8, and ten each "fall" 50%, though at different high and low temperatures, so the "Carnot" efficiency calculation is 50% for each, regardless that the actual "distances" between the high and low temperature are different.

Columns 1 and 9 are both 100% efficiency because the "Fall" is "all the way down" regardless of differences in high and low temperatures or distance between T hot and T cold.

After spending years working out various standard "Carnot" engine efficiency "Sample Problems", It eventually became clear that the equation represents nothing more than "The Fall of Caloric" from T_hot down to T_cold.

The various columns can be viewed as simply graduated cylinders filled to a certain level with fluid "caloric".

A weird munging together of Carnot's "height of the waterfall" conception of heat shoehorned into Kelvins much later absolute temperature scale.


The question is, DOES THIS REALLY MAKE ANY SENSE????

Well, illustrated graphically this way, I think it is easy to see where this comes from and the rationale behind it, but exactly how does the ratio of the distance between T_hot and T_cold exert absolute control over the efficiency of a REAL engine in such a way?

Consider columns 1 through 7 again. The temperature difference is exactly the same for each, and yet the efficiency progressively goes DOWN the higher the position on the temperature scale.

Near ABSOLUTE ZERO where there is scarcely any heat at all, "efficiency" is calculated as 100% but at 700 Kelvin efficiency is a mere 14% for the same temperature difference.

This equation is obvious GARBAGE. Irrelevant nonsensical crap.

I mean, I never set out to debunk the "Carnot" efficiency limit, not at all. I just set out to understand it, and now that I do, it is quite obviously simplistic NONSENSE.

What else can I say?

[Tom Booth]

A point or two of clarification:

56097


The "scale" of the graph can be thought of as divided from bottom to top (or top to bottom) into increments of 100 degrees.

The top of each red or high temperature zone in the seven columns on the left that happen to look like a "staircase" goes up, starting on the left; first column at 100 degrees, second column: 200 degrees, third column: 300 degrees, etc.

!00 degree increments is really just a suggestion. As the "Carnot" limit equation is a RATIO or percentage the scale does not actually matter. "Half full of caloric" would yield 50% efficiency regardless, or a "fall in temperature" of "half way" or half the distance on the way "down" to absolute zero, from T_hot down to T_cold will yield 50% efficiency.

Well, we can just draw in an actual temperature scale for additional clarity:


56098


Taking column 8 then, the "sink" temperature for the engine is shown to be 350 K.

350 K is one half the "high temperature" of 700 K

350 + 350 = 700

So if we apply the so-called "Carnot efficiency Limit Formula":

η = 1 - TL/TH

efficiency = 1 - TL/TH
efficiency = 1 - 350/700
efficiency = 1 - 0.5
efficiency = 0.5 = 50% = a "fall" of "half way down" to absolute zero


I think a fair question to ask, is who came up with this "FRANKENSTEIN" equation, that melds together the Caloric theory with the Kelvin (absolute) temperature scale?

Nobody knows, apparently.

Nobody Knows?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!

Seriously?

This supposedly iron clad, irrefutable, absolute "LAW OF THE UNIVERSE" that everyone MUST BELIEVE under pain of expulsion from the scientific community at large, has no know origin?

Who thought this was a good idea?


This was an amazing result, because it was exactly correct, despite being based on a complete misunderstanding of the nature of heat!

https://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/152.mf1i.spring02/CarnotEngine.htm

Who decided or determined this equation to be "exactly correct" pray tell.

Who, when. where. by what experiment?

crickets.

Who decided this was a good thing to start putting in textbooks and cramming down the gullet of students of thermodynamics from day one?

Who has employed apparent armies of "Trolls" to police internet message forums to repeat this idiotic "formula" like a mantra, over and over and over hammering everyone over the head with it until they slip into an unconscious confused stupor and finally conclude; Oh well, I guess my idea for a "free energy" device can't work. may as well watch the ballgame on TV and forget about it.

[Tom Booth]

Let's take column 4 of the final graph above as it is a close approximation of the actual environmental conditions wherein a Stirling heat engine will actually operate.

300°K is equivalent to 80°F. A typical temperature on a summer day in a temperate climate (where I happen to live). Or 300°K is equivalent to about 27°C a "realistic" ambient temperature here on planet earth.

So, let's say our Stirling engine is sitting idle on the kitchen table without any heat being applied. The ambient temperature is 300°K

In modern day science "HEAT" has the technical definition of thermal energy TRANSFERED. So, all the "heat" within the engine and surrounding the engine, the "heat" of the general ambient environment is not REALLY "HEAT" at all, in the strict scientific sense, as there is no transfer of energy going on at all.

Now we heat the hot side of the engine to elevate the temperature by 100° C or K (the Kelvin and centigrade scale use the same increment gradation)

Now heat (actual heat or thermal energy transfer) can begin to "flow" into the engine.

So looking at column 4 again, the red block above 300°K can be viewed as "available heat", and the "heat" below 300°K down to absolute zero is "unavailable heat".

Now the real problem here is that the same word "HEAT" is being used to represent a multiplicity of different concepts and actual physical conditions.

Only the "heat" represented in red, above 300°K is actual supplied "heat" that can be transfered into the engine due to a temperature difference. The ambient, or environmental "background energy" represented in blue, from 300°K down to absolute zero is not heat that is, or can be "supplied" or actually transfered into the engine. That "heat" was already there as part of the general ambient environment.

So what does "Carnot efficiency" actually represent?

Well, it represents the percentage of "available heat" relative to "all the heat" from T_hot down to absolute zero.

So the percentage of "useable heat" in column 4 is 25% of "all the heat" while the remaining 75% of the "heat", which is not REALLY "heat" at all, in the technical scientific sense of "energy transfered is unusable or "unavailable".

Well, that seems logical. Of course you can't get out more than you put in, so if you add enough heat to raise the temperature 25% then when that 25% is "used up" or "consumed" by the engine then that is the most heat that can be used, that is, only the actual added heat that can be actually transfered into the engine can be used and the temperature drops back down to the ambient baseline at 300°K

This is all logical and reasonable SO FAR.

But how this is currently being interpreted and actually taught and applied twists these rather loose and sloppy definitions of "heat" into a knot.

We can see that on an absolute temperature scale the temperature from T_hot (400°K) down to T_cold (300°K) in column 4 is ONLY 25% of "all the heat" all the way down to absolute zero.

But we are combining two different concepts or two different definitions of "heat": The actual "heat" we actually supplied to the engine and the inert environmental heat that was already there.

Regardless, we now have this number 25%

So, we are going to say this represents 25% "efficiency".

So we added to the engine, in the strict scientific sense, the "available heat" above 300°K represented in red.

Let's say this "available heat" is actually measured to be 100 joules.

If the engine is 25% "efficient" that means that of the 100 joules of "available heat" supplied, the engine can only convert 25 joules, or 25% into "work" of power output, while 75% of the supplied heat must be "rejected" to the "cold reservoir" as "waste heat".

Wait just a minute though.

We took a number from the absolute temperature scale, 25% of the "fall" down to absolute zero, from T_hot at 400°K down to T_cold at 300°K and are now applying this number: 25% to the finite quantity of heat actually supplied to the engine: 100 joules.

Again, this is very "sloppy" math. Several different distinct variables; "heat" "heat" and "heat" are being mixed and swapped one for the other like a shell game.

GumWeVdcof4

[Tom Booth]

This additional video from Bob Hanlin seems appropriate at this point:


WBO90i55FVw

[Tom Booth]

I have a suspicion, however, that maybe, just maybe, the rather bizarre behavior of advocates of the "Carnot Efficiency Limit Formula" is not due to being part of, or in some way involved with some kind of world wide conspiracy to suppress "free energy".

Maybe it is something more along the lines of a collective hysteria arising from the above described confusion and contradictions inherent in the subject of "Thermo-(HEAT)-dynamics" itself.

Nearly every technical term in the study of thermodynamics is built upon, or is in some way defined by, or is associated with "HEAT". Something that modern science says DOES NOT EXIST AT ALL!

Probably many here are familiar with Scientology and the alleged effects stemming from "misunderstood words".

The symptoms may include hysteria, anger, feelings of stupidity and engaging in destructive acts.

So you have entire educational departments and graduating classes along with the entire thermodynamics community going back generations that have strained their brains in an effort to comprehend the incomprehensible terminology of thermodynamics begining with a historical confusion and flip flopping back and forth in regard to the very fundamental nature of the subject itself: thermo - HEAT.

And what happens when this confusion and muddle of definitions of "heat" becomes codified; incorporated into mathematical equations and symbology which is just TRUSTED to be CORRECT, without any actual "reality checking" through experiment?

"You can't argue with the MATH!".

There is hardly a word in the thermodynamics textbook glossary that anyone really understands or fully agrees on. The whole subject is a muddle of obsolescence. Terminology that applies only to mythological non-existent things: "reservoirs" of "Heat", for example. No such thing as heat, so how can there be a "reservoir" of this non-existent thing?

The deeper anyone gets into studying thermodynamics the worse it gets. The whole subject is completely divorced from reality, existing in its own imaginary fantasy world built and constructed upon tenuous apparent connections and relationships between mathematical abstractions that are full of ill-defined symbols meant to represent non-existent or poorly defined entities or variables.

Only the most determined, or the most unfortunate, manage to plow through this morass of confusion to become graduates and finally teachers of this obsolete "science".

These people are completely insane, or more accurately, have been driven insane.

What else can I say? That is my honest assessment based on my experience over the years having to deal with these "Carnot fanatics" as I've come to refer to them.

Is it a true "conspiracy"?

Maybe not, but they all seem to come from the same camp, cut from the same mold all with the same "talking points" and all with similar destructive tendencies.

[Tom Booth]

Not to pick on my friend, or recent acquaintance on the Science forum particularly, but it serves as an example:

Talking about a Peltier device, or solid state "heat pump":


If any additional heat is pumped through the device the Coefficient of Performance, COP can be greater than 1. How much heat you move, largely depends on the temperature difference between the cold and hot sides. The smaller this difference is, the more heat you can move.

We talk about "heat" being "pumped THROUGH the device", though no such substance or fluid to be "pumped" exists.

"How much heat you MOVE...", we talk about heat as if it were a piece of furniture that can be moved around independently like any physical objects, but no such "HEAT" object actually exists.

And the above quote is describing a phenomenon we basically agree on, or that I agree with.

The language of thermodynamics and the common language generally used by everyone to talk about "heat" is riddled through and through with terminology borrowed from the obsolete caloric theory.

I don't want to be "word police" insisting everyone use "proper" terminology. Analogies are fine, as long as they are at least consistent and there is not a lot of confusion.

However, when it comes to the "Carnot Efficiency Limit Formula" there is confusion. Different definitions of heat are swopped one for the other arbitrarily, but this goes unnoticed and is difficult to follow or trace, like the pea in a shell game.

The mathematical equation itself embodies contradiction. The use and interpretation of this equation involves "slight of hand" where one definition of heat is suddenly replaced by another, though exclusionary from one another.

Heat as energy transfered, heat as inert ambient background energy and heat as "internal energy" are run together as if all one thing that "flows through" a "heat" engine.

Heat as 10 Joules of energy, once transfered into the engine becomes "all the heat" down to absolute zero, leading to the absurd conclusion that it is "impossible" for the engine to utilize those 10 joules without utilizing "all the heat" or all the "internal energy" now contained within the engine all the way down to ABSOLUTE ZERO!

This is pure lunacy!

[Tom Booth]

This is a rather interesting playlist on the subject of "the efficiency of heat engines" if viewed with a critical eye.. That is, if you realize, or consider, that what you are watching is a shell game or professional magic trick incorporating a lot of fast talk and number juggling.


https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLX2gX-ftPVXXzDqUrBdr-6UpYez_LmUrM&si=vurNbbx6auUuJExQ


The professor giving these lectures sometimes even seems to take on the persona of a magician pulling a rabbit out of his hat, Isn't that AMAZING! How unbelievable.

These moments are clues that some mathematical slight of hand has just taken place.

Well, yes. That actually IS unbelievable and doesn't really make sense.

Instead of being awestruck, backtrack to the inconsistency that lead to such a bizarre, inexplicable result or conclusion. Some substitution of one variable for another, some failure to keep straight the various definitions of "HEAT". An unjustifiable substitution of one thing for some other thing. "Heat" or it's mathematical representation for "Temperature" or it's mathematical representation. Not really the same thing. "Q" and "T" cannot simply be substituted one for the other for example.

This series of videos is like a live magic show. Where is the TRICK, the sleight of hand or number juggling?

Thermodynamics is full of absurdities.

[Tom Booth]

Pinpointing the precise mathematical error in the "Carnot Efficiency Limit Formula" took some time.

The question was, why were my experiments on the bench with actual engines not showing the "correct" quantities of "entropy" or "waste heat leaving the engines?

It may be the error is NOT actually an error when the equation is applied to MOST engines, but only becomes an "error" when applied to Stirling engines.

Stirling engines are significantly different in that they are hermetically sealed, having no intake and no exhaust.

The other "error" stems from using a variable ("Q" usually) to represent "HEAT".

"HEAT" is a word that can be variously interpreted, we have heat defined as energy TRANSFERED, which is "useable heat" but also the same word "HEAT" can be applied to entropy, or unusable heat. These are really opposites, but in the application of the Carnot efficiency Limit formula they are sometimes treated separately as 1) useable or 2) unusable, and also sometimes combined as "total heat" so if one does not keep this in mind while working the equation the mathematical representation "Q" may start out as "HEAT" (useable heat) then morph into "HEAT" (combined useable + unusable heat), then finally morph into "HEAT" (entropy: unusable heat or "waste heat").

So you could say that technically "the math" is not "wrong" in terms of the calculations, it is more a semantic problem surrounding the potential multiplicity of meanings assigned to the word "HEAT" and by extension the variable "Q".

In an external combustion engine keeping the variable "Q" explicitly defined as say Q_u for "useable heat" and "Q_w" for "waste heat and maybe "Q_t" for "total heat" does not matter so much, because a gasoline engine sucks both the useable and the inert unusable environmental heat in together and exhausts them together.

An external combustion engine, like a Stirling engine on the other hand only admits actual heat proper in the strict scientific nomenclature, that is, pure useable heat/energy.

No "waste heat" or entropy "exhaust" is generated by a Stirling engine because no "Q_w" or inert unusable heat entered the engine through the INTAKE in the first place.

So with a Stirling engine, keeping these different types or definitions of "Q" or "HEAT" matters very much.

Denizens of the science and physics forums, when I try to point out this issue tend to become hostile. You think you know better than 200 years of established science, blah blah blah. You think you discover "the error" that generations of real scientists overlooked?

Well, yeah, I guess, maybe.

No, my "amature" experiments are what's in error, uncontrolled, poorly conducted, using "toy" engines... blah blah blah

Followed by banning.

Well, they could always do their own university level experiments using the best test equipment, if they wanted to, but no, not worth wasting the time, it is up to me to prove my "extraordinary claim".

Well, really, how hard is it to take temperature readings from the "waste heat" side of a Stirling engine?

You can just FEEL it with your hand and tell there isn't any heat "flowing out" if it FEELS cold, you can use a thermal image or infrared thermometer or temperature probe. This is not at all difficult to do really. Measuring the "flow of waste heat" from the engine.

[Tom Booth]

There is also a basic, fundamental contradiction between the first law of thermodynamics: conservation of energy and the second law "Carnot Efficiency Limit Formula" as currently interpreted and taught in thermodynamics.

The first law states that the more efficient a heat engine, the more heat is converted to work and the less heat there is left over to pass through and out of the engine as "waste heat"

More efficient -> Less Waste

Makes sense, and has been experimentally demonstrated by James Joule and others. This is represented by the equation:

W = Q_H - Q_C

Work or power output from the engine is equal to the heat going in less the "waste heat" passing through.

The second law states that, or is generally interpreted or implies that, the greater the temperature difference between the hot and cold side of the engine, the "steeper the gradient", the more heat flows through the engine from the hot side to the cold side faster and more forcefully, increasing efficiency.

Now, heat "flowing through" the engine to the cold side is, according to the first law "waste heat".

So the second law is saying that the MORE waste heat, the greater the efficiency.

Both views make sense depending on how heat is viewed and how power is generated from heat by the engine

Naturally heat, if like a liquid, (waterfall), the further and faster the liquid "falls" and passes through the "water wheel" the more power the engine will produce.

But if heat is ENERGY, then out of the energy entering into the engine, the LESS heat passing through, the greater the efficiency, the greater the power output, as the more heat/energy is CONVERTED to power output within the engine, the LESS "waste heat" there is left over to pass out of the engine.

Conceptually and mathematically, the "Carnot Efficiency Limit Formula" directly contradicts conservation of energy.

[Tom Booth]

It was in the course of researching heat engines, and in particular the workings of "external combustion" type Stirling engines, for no other reason than to build a power producing Stirling engine for personal use, as none were available for purchase from anywhere, that I came across these glaring unresolved contradictions and disagreements.

Both arguments or THEORIES made sense to me.

Caloric theory makes perfect sense and even APPEARS to be true. A greater temperature difference actually DOES produce more power in a Stirling engine, by all appearances, so it is difficult to see or understand how it could not be true.

But the first law; conservation of energy is undoubtedly true.

So maybe HEAT is NOT ENERGY maybe heat really is a substance: Caloric, or maybe not "caloric" exactly but something.

Heat DOES "flow" to cold, doesn't it?

Science, or thermodynamics generally, does not recognize these issues as "unresolved".

But from a practical point of view, from MY point of view as a hands on engine mechanic and repair technician determined to build an actual working engine, these things are UNRESOLVED conflicting opinions and theories ALL IN THE ABSTRACT.

Thermodynamics dwells upon "ideal" abstract engine cycles that do not exist in the real world, and could not actually function as described, in the real world. The "Carnot engine" and Carnot "cycle" are purely hypothetical.

My only recourse then was to get busy and settled these issues by actual experiment.

Unlike the "natural philosophers" who came up with all this stuff, all these THEORIES, I have a good general knowledge of how REAL engines actually work. My job, working as a mechanic was to take in a non-functioning engine from a customer, often give a diagnosis and an estimate on the cost of repairs, then actually tear down the engine, repair it, and deliver back to the customer a working engine. No room there for pie in the sky "ideals" or wishful thinking or theories. Real engines have to actually run and actually work and serve some useful purpose. They are not just equations on a chalk board.

Tesla was a hands on scientist/inventor. He actually built things. Motors, turbines, all kinds of mechanical and electrical contrivances. His ideas and inventions were constantly REALITY CHECKED directly on the work bench in his workshop, so when it came to an unresolved disagreement between the "Natural Philosophers" and Tesla, regarding how a heat engine works, I thought Tesla's insights on the subject should be given equal consideration alongside the vagaries of modern "established science"; specifically, the Carnot efficiency Limit formula.

Either heat FLOWS THROUGH an engine as a SUBSTANCE (caloric theory) or

Heat enters the engine as a form of ENERGY and is CONVERTED to another form of energy: power or work output (Tesla) or:

A kind of unresolved, self-contradictory compromise where SOME heat is converted and the rest passes through as "waste heat" according to an exact mathematical formula (Carnot Efficiency Limit Formula).

All the literature seemed to suggest the issue could never be resolved because the "ideal" Carnot engine could never actually be built, so no actual experiment or testing on such an engine would ever be possible.

Well, that's not how I saw it

Allegedly, the "Carnot Efficiency Limit Formula" applies to and actually limits the efficiency of ALL engines. That is the claim. No engine could ever be built that could possibly ever be more efficient than a Carnot engine. A rather bold claim considering the hypothetical engine never existed and admittedly could never actually function as a real engines.

But, there is this EQUATION or FORMULA that is supposed to apply to ALL engines, so then, if that is true, then the equation should apply to the very REAL Stirling engine I happened to be interested in.

Stirling engines are REAL, they do work,, they do run, they are not merely theoretical or hypothetical or "ideal", one can be built, put on the work bench and actually tested. It can be fully examined, instrumented, measured, etc. etc.

It CAN be determined if the "Carnot EFFICIENCY LIMIT formula" actually holds up experimentally, or not.

Well, after years of experimentation, direct observation and testing, I think I can safely say that the formula DOES NOT hold up experimentally.

That having been settled conclusively, indicating Tesla was basically correct all along, the next logical step would be to see if Tesla's conclusion that a combined heat engine and heat pump could produce a "perpetual" energy generator, using the heat pump as a kind of FUEL PUMP to make environmental heat available for use by the heat engine.

I think that is a potentially very important question that should at least be subject to some empirical testing.

Therefore, the current project, the subject of this thread.

Enough talk. My next post will be an update on the heat engine / Peltier heat pump construction.

[Tom Booth]

Video update:


E3Ywxm0ePs4


BTW, discussion of this project has now been permanently banned/locked and my account has been permanently banned on the science forum.

The reason given: first suspension:

"If you return and continue to make unsubstantiated claims about "impossible" Stirling engine efficiency and continue to reject the Carnot Cycle and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, you will not be welcome here.

Banning:

"I warned you if you come back with an agenda of arguing against the Carnot Cycle and the Second Law of Thermodynamics you will not be welcome here."

Aside from the fact that this moderator keeps equating the Carnot Cycle with the Carnot Efficiency Limit Formula It seems he insists on ramrodding these principles or theories down everybody's gullet but insists on doing so without anyone having any opportunity to present any kind of rebuttal or alternative theory.

Last I knew, Science was all about arguing for and/or against the various scientific principles and theories. That is how science progresses, infact, the same science forum is virtually nothing else but arguments and debates about various scientific theories and principles.

The message is clear: the "Carnot Efficiency Limit" is sacrosanct.

In actuality, it is such completely baseless, unscientific, obsolete, childishly simplistic and transparently silly dictum with no historical or empirical basis it must be protected by ramparts, like a house of cards in the wind.

[Tom Booth]

Earlier in the thread I posted this video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWM-D_KB4o8

I just finished watching a second video on the same channel:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pY8q20cu9g

I would consider this additional independent verification that the "Carnot Efficiency Limit Formula" has no empirical basis whatsoever and in fact, does not hold experimentally.

The Carnot "Efficiency Limit" is not a description of reality, but rather simply a holdover from circa 1820's Caloric theory as well as the weapon of choice for the purveyors of misinformation on the internet seeking to "muddy the waters".

[Tom Booth]

Something else I've noticed while testing various Peltier chips is that they "pump heat" very very rapidly.

Holding one between the fingers, then applying voltage to it from a small battery, at first one side becomes icy cold almost instantly, a moment later the other side quickly becomes burning hot.

This happens so quickly it would seem nearly impossible to conduct away so much burning hot heat fast enough, or replenish heat to the cold side fast enough to maintain a low temperature difference for maximizing COP.

In this application, it seems unlikely that the Stirling engine could utilize so much heat quickly enough, or that the large aluminum heat exchanger ("heat sink") could warm up the cold side fast enough, so, the initial extremely high COP will likely diminish very quickly.

If the Peltier is shut off, giving the engine time to use up the heat moved towards the engine, and to give the aluminum block supplying heat time to warm back up, the Peltier chip is so thin that it will instantly begin conducting heat BACKWARDS.

So I've been trying to think of ways to solve this problem.

Some months ago I was reading about various types of "heat diodes".

One form of heat diodes is simply a bimetal strip. When the bimetal strip heats up, it flexes.

So, if we were to use a bimetal strip to break contact between the Peltier and the aluminum "heat supply" below it and also break the electrical circuit powering the Peltier, this could be an effective means of using the Peltier intermittently for maximum COP while preventing "back flow" of the heat that has already been moved into the engine.

[Tom Booth]

An alternative might be a kind of Peltier "relay race", for lack of a better description

But imagine a stack of Peltier devices one on top of the other but separated by solid metal, probably stainless steel plates or "heat sinks" to act as temporary heat storage areas.

Stainless steel has the property of tending to hold onto heat until the heat is "pulled away", unlike aluminium that has more of a tendency to throw off heat immediately.

Starting with turning on the lowest bottom Peltier that is switched on, heat is quickly transfered to the SS plate above it.

Then the next higher Peltier in the stack is switched on and the first switched off, now the heat is pulled from the bottom most SS plate to the next higher plate.

This "handing off" of the job of moving the heat up the stack would tend to keep the heat moving in the desired direction while only requiring the powering on of one Peltier chip at a time.

Further, because each chip above the first will now actually be moving heat from a lower very hot SS plate to the relatively less hot SS plate above it, the COP of each successive stage should increase as the heat transfer follows the "natural" tendency of heat to "flow" from hot to cold.

Once the heat reaches the top of the stack, the process can be repeated and another "wave" of heat can be moved up through the stack, all without ever powering on more than one Peltier device at a time while also maintaining COP at a maximum.

This is my own theoretical ideal scenario just now pulled from the noosphere and may not work as envisioned but, I think there is a good chance that it might just actually work.

[Tom Booth]

Just thought I'd mention; I received a nice lengthy response from Peter Selvey from Japan (above 2 videos: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?130236-Stirling-Heat-Engine-Heat--Fuel--Pump-Limitless-Energy&p=1686790&viewfull=1#post1686790 ) Among many other things, he tells me he has had very similar ideas in terms of the above "relay race" concept, but in the opposite direction. That is, chilling a "thermal mass" (water) about 10 or 20 degrees, then handing the job over to a second Peltier to chill the water another step colder, to maximize COP, but relates that he hasn't gotten this to work.

I think the reason, which he seems to agree with, is that the "waste heat" is transfered back into "stack" and also as the temperature decreases, there is less heat for the Peltier to move so it needs to work harder at each stage to scavange less and less heat.

I don't think these issues exist when using the Peltier devices as heaters, as there is no "waste heat" or rather, the existence of such anywhere in the stack simply becomes surplus "fuel" to be pumped into the Stirling engine as "fuel" to be consumed.

Also, maintaining a below ambient cold is quite difficult when the water "thermal mass" is surrounded on all sides by ambient heat, requiring effective insulation.

For drawing heat in to deliver to the Stirling engine, no insulation is required or desirable, as what we want is for the ambient heat to be absorbed into the cold side of the Peltier as much as possible. Also any "backflow" of heat while a Peltier is temporarily shut off will be picked up by the next "wave" as the heat is pushed up through the stack.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to a productive exchange of ideas.

[Ewan]

This may be of interest to you Tom?

cFE_NO7hu0E

[Blastolabs]

These systems are not over-unity devices in the usual sense of the term.
They do not produce more energy than they consume.
they may appear efficient due to how their inputs and outputs are defined.

The difference is heat transfer efficiency and energy convertion efficiency.
These two are not the same thing.

For example, a heat engine or heat pump can have a coefficient of performance (COP) greater than 1, but that doesn’t mean it generates energy from nothing. The COP measures heat transfer efficiency, not total energy conversion efficiency. In contrast, an electrical generator with a COP greater than 1 would imply it outputs more electrical energy than it takes in

These are two fundamentally different concepts, with different physical units and definitions.

That said, I do think that over-unity energy generation exists, just not with heat engines.
I've mentioned this distinction to Wade before, but he refused to take note of the clear difference.

[Leroy]

This one might be over-unity: https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=316&part=1&gen=99

[Blastolabs]

Here is a list of legitimate over unity energy devices from Tom Bearden's old website.
It went offline after he died but it's still on archive.org

There seems to be 3-4 different natural phenomena available to create limitless energy

https://web.archive.org/web/20220307213748/http://cheniere.org/misc/oulist.htm