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.

[Tom Booth]

Video update:

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

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=QWM-D_KB4o8

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

Source: https://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/sho...=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.