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

[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.