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

[Tom Booth]

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

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=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.





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-Ther...7KF3KN18&psc=1

[Tom Booth]

A bit more progress:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=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).



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.



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.

[Tom Booth]

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

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=nJ5-Svoog8o

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=PcXJF5jc5Oc

[Tom Booth]

The key takeaway from the previous video is this:





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

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/Succ...rd_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/0...ing-university

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dar...il-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:





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:




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:





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/cl...rnotEngine.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.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=GumWeVdcof4

[Tom Booth]

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

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=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=PL...rNbbx6auUuJExQ


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.