Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

Poplamp

poplamp

CCTool

CCTool

LEDTVforSale

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

OverUnity Book

overunity principles book

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 81837
  • *Latest: ganpath

  • *Total Posts: 488371
  • *Total Topics: 14369
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 5
  • *Guests: 276
  • *Total: 281

Facebook

Author Topic: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?  (Read 56206 times)

Offline Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
    • My Heat Engine Project
Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« on: December 13, 2012, 03:01:00 AM »
In 1900 Tesla presented a method or theory for extracting energy from Ambient Heat.

Over 100 years have gone by and to my knowledge his idea or theory has been given little attention, has not been proven or disproven, nor, as far as I know has it been tested.

His explanation makes quite a bit of sense to me, but if true, why has this not been utilized ?

Here is an excerpt (edited for length)
 
Quote
POSSIBILITY OF A "SELF-ACTING" ENGINE OR MACHINE, ..CAPABLE,... OF DERIVING ENERGY FROM THE MEDIUM--THE IDEAL WAY OF OBTAINING MOTIVE POWER.
...Clearly, then, the problem was to discover some new method which would make it possible both to utilize more of the heat-energy of the medium and also to draw it away from the same at a more rapid rate.

I was vainly endeavoring to form an idea of how this might be accomplished, when I read some statements from Carnot and Lord Kelvin (then Sir William Thomson) which meant virtually that it is impossible for an inanimate mechanism or self-acting machine to cool a portion of the medium below the temperature of the surrounding, and operate by the heat abstracted. These statements interested me intensely....

Conceive, for the sake of illustration, [a cylindrical] enclosure T, as illustrated in diagram b, such that energy could not be transferred across it except through a channel or path O, and that, by some means or other, in this enclosure a medium were maintained which would have little energy, and that on the outer side of the same there would be the ordinary ambient medium with much energy. Under these assumptions the energy would flow through the path O, as indicated by the arrow, and might then be converted on its passage into some other form of energy. The question was, Could such a condition be attained? Could we produce artificially such a "sink" for the energy of the ambient medium to flow in? Suppose that an extremely low temperature could be maintained by some process in a given space; the surrounding medium would then be compelled to give off heat, which could be converted into mechanical or other form of energy, and utilized. By realizing such a plan, we should be enabled to get at any point of the globe a continuous supply of energy, day and night. More than this, reasoning in the abstract, it would seem possible to cause a quick circulation of the medium, and thus draw the energy at a very rapid rate.

Here, then, was an idea which, if realizable, afforded a happy solution of the problem of getting energy from the medium. But was it realizable? I convinced myself that it was so in a number of ways, ... Heat, like water, flows from high to low level, ... Heat, like water, can perform work in flowing down,... But can we produce cold in a given portion of the space and cause the heat to flow in continually? To create such a "sink," or "cold hole," as we might say, in the medium, would be equivalent to producing in the lake a space either empty or filled with something much lighter than water. This we could do by placing in the lake a tank, and pumping all the water out of the latter. We know, then, that the water, if allowed to flow back into the tank, would, theoretically, be able to perform exactly the same amount of work which was used in pumping it out, but not a bit more. Consequently nothing could be gained in this double operation of first raising the water and then letting it fall down. This would mean that it is impossible to create such a sink in the medium. But let us reflect a moment. Heat, though following certain general laws of mechanics, like a fluid, is not such; it is energy which may be converted into other forms of energy as it passes from a high to a low level. To make our mechanical analogy complete and true, we must, therefore, assume that the water, in its passage into the tank, is converted into something else, which may be taken out of it without using any, or by using very little, power. ... If the process of heat transformation were absolutely perfect, no heat at all would arrive at the low level, since all of it would be converted into other forms of energy. ... We would thus produce, by expending initially a certain amount of work to create a sink for the heat ... to flow in, a condition enabling us to get any amount of energy without further effort. This would be an ideal way of obtaining motive power. We do not know of any such absolutely perfect process of heat-conversion, and consequently some heat will generally reach the low level, ... But evidently there will be less to pump out than flows in, or, in other words, less energy will be needed to maintain the initial condition than is developed by the fall, and this is to say that some energy will be gained from the medium. What is not converted in flowing down can just be raised up with its own energy, and what is converted is clear gain. Thus the virtue of the principle I have discovered resides wholly in the conversion of the energy on the downward flow."

The full article can be found at either of these links:

http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1900-06-00.htm

http://www.pbs.org/tesla/res/res_art09.html

I would like to know, does this idea have any merit ?

What happens to the heat that powers a heat engine ? Is it, like Tesla says, CONVERTED into something else ? Another form of energy. Or does it simply pass through from heat source to heat sink ?

How might this idea be tested ?

This isn't a "New Theory" as it was proposed by Tesla over 100 years ago but I don't know where else might be more appropriate for such a theoretical discussion.

Any thoughts or insights, experiments, observations etc. would be most appreciated.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline angryScientist

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #1 on: December 13, 2012, 05:16:30 AM »
I think it does have merit. It comes with a caveat though; Every trick in the book should be used.

What most people that bring up the laws of thermodynamics don't realize is the LATENT heat does not get calculated.

LATENT from Latin; to lie hidden

The heat absorbed in the phase change from a liquid to a gas does not get computed in the PVT calculations. The heat gets a free ride. That is what makes a heat pump ~%400 efficient.

There are other changes in phase that can be exploited. When a gas dissociates there is latent heat absorbed. When it re-associates the latent heat reappears and can make a turbine engine about %60 efficient, I hear tell.

YES! Tesla was right. He may not have had the most efficient engines back then.

WRONG is what people are when they only see half of reality.


Offline Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #2 on: December 13, 2012, 05:22:10 AM »
While Tesla may have been brilliant with electrical devices, I don't think he understood thermodynamics.

Just my opinion, but I think Tesla understood thermodynamics.

Quote
For non quantum sized devices, the second law of thermodynamics would prohibit such a device working if there was no temperature gradient.

I think Tesla also was well aware of the second law of thermodynamics as he references the authorities on the subject in his article.

In what he proposes, there IS a thermal gradient.

As a practical example of what he was proposing, take a Stirling Engine "running on ice". Tesla was quite aware that a thermal or temperature gradient or differential was necessary and would need to be supplied in order to get such an engine started.

What he was saying is that once started, Assuming that your supplied heat sink is perfectly insulated from ambient heat, except insofar as that heat that might reach it in passing through the engine, the engine would convert the heat trying to reach the sink into something other than heat. i.e. motive power and/or electricity etc.

Put another way, if you started a Stirling (heat or hot air) Engine running on ice, It would actually be getting its energy source from the surrounding ambient heat.

Now if the ice were in a thermally insulated bowl, like a dewar bulb or thermos bottle but open at the top with the Stirling Engine sitting on top of that, Then no (or very little) heat could reach the ice except by passing through and powering the engine, but in so doing, the heat, or some percentage of it, would be converted into mechanical energy, or if the engine were coupled to a generator, into electricity. so the heat would be converted into some other form of energy before it reached the heat sink. and so it would never actually get to the ice to melt it.

What he is suggesting, in effect, I think is; If you had a very efficient heat engine running on ice, and there was no other way for heat to reach the ice from the environment except through powering the engine then the ice would never melt or so little heat would reach the ice that that heat could be easily removed by utilizing the power derived from the heat which was converted.

I think many people in arguing against this say that IT TAKES ENERGY TO MAKE ICE, and have the misconception that a Stirling Engine "running on ice" is actually running on energy STORED IN THE ICE by an ice maker. But this is not the case. The engine "running on ice" is really running on ambient heat. If the heat in passing into the engine is CONVERTED before it reaches the ice then the ice would never melt, or melt much more slowly than it would if exposed to the open air.

So it would take less energy to maintain the temperature gradient once established than would be derived from that gradient from the ambient heat being converted by the engine.



Offline Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2012, 05:39:11 AM »
I think it does have merit....
YES! Tesla was right. He may not have had the most efficient engines back then.


OK, but if so, and given modern advances in technology that were not available in Tesla's day, why has this not been exploited in 100+ years ?

I've seen dozens of LTD type Stirling Engines on YouTube "running on ice" but have never seen anyone in any of these videos bothering to INSULATE the ice from the surrounding Ambient Heat.

Also, as much as I've seen talk of coupling a heat engine with a heat pump, as appears to be the case in your illustration, as far as I'm aware, nobody has ever actually put something like that together. Or if they have, they have not reported on the results of any such experiment.


Offline angryScientist

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2012, 06:30:32 AM »
Phase change and latent heat etc is not important when considering a device with regard to the second law. A heat pump obeys the second law. It is just its cycle is reversed compared to a heat engine.

One could not connect the output of a heatpump to the input of a heat engine and have it run 'self looped'. Such a system would be creating output work with no overall temperature differential and thus break the 2nd law.

That's not entirely true. Among other things the scale is important. At the macroscopic level that will generally hold true (unless some animal walks into the scene and messes everything up. Crazy nature. How is one to account for that? Never mind, I'm just say'n.) On the microscopic scale things get weird and it becomes more and more possible that extra energy is going to appear from know where or maybe change form and disappear.

A heat pump clearly violates the second law of thermodynamics. It reverses entropy. It gathers heat and compresses it into a small space increasing the temperature there and reducing it elsewhere. That is the exact opposite of entropy.

A heat pump and an engine are not really the same. We would think that something is wrong if a heat pump were not more than %100 efficient. We expect %300 to %400 percent efficiency. An engine on the other hand can NEVER be more than %100 efficient.

A heat pump can be thought of as a heat concentrator.
An engine can be thought of as a heat converter. I takes heat and turns it into something that is not heat. You end up with less heat but that energy in now in another form, mechanical, for instance.

Looking at the math, I would say that it is possible to connect the output of a heat pump to the input of a heat engine and have it run 'self looped'. You may end up with less heat but that energy will be still be there, in another form. Perhaps a form that would be more useful.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2012, 06:30:32 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2012, 02:51:05 PM »
Phase change and latent heat etc is not important when considering a device with regard to the second law. A heat pump obeys the second law. It is just its cycle is reversed compared to a heat engine.

Ordinarily true, but I think Tesla was proposing something different.

Quote
One could not connect the output of a heatpump to the input of a heat engine and have it run 'self looped'. Such a system would be creating output work with no overall temperature differential and thus break the 2nd law.

What constitutes "the output of a heatpump" ?

Heat, right ?

But Tesla was not proposing running an engine on the output of a heat pump. Rather he was proposing running an engine on Ambient heat. Ambient heat does not have to be created or "pumped" it is just there.

So he was proposing something subtly different.
Quote
If what he proposes actually has a thermal gradient then there are plenty of Tesla devices out there already... One need not look any further than a thermo-electric device.

What he proposed is that one could convert all the ambient heat to another form of energy thus not requiring an actual cold sink.

He nowhere makes the assertion that a cold sink would not be required, quite the contrary.

"by expending initially a certain amount of work to create a sink for the heat ... to flow in..."

He recognized that a "sink" had to be created and that energy would have to be expended to create and maintain such a sink.

He also recognized that it is not possible to convert ALL the heat: "We do not know of any such absolutely perfect process of heat-conversion, and consequently some heat will generally reach the low level, ..."

Quote
Carnot had something to say about that as an impossibility, and Tesla didn't elaborate on how it his device could get around those limitations

Tesla was well aware of Carnot. He makes reference to Carnot in the quoted material above: "I read some statements from Carnot and Lord Kelvin (then Sir William Thomson) which meant virtually that it is impossible for an inanimate mechanism or self-acting machine to cool a portion of the medium below the temperature of the surrounding, and operate by the heat abstracted. These statements interested me intensely.... "

His whole article from that point on elaborates on how it is possible to get around those limitations.

I believe Tesla was proposing something quite different from using the heat from a heat pump to run a heat engine.

What he was proposing is removing heat from a given space which would then allow the Ambient heat to flow in naturally. The ambient heat does not have to be generated by a heat pump. Ultimately it is supplied by the sun. If a heat pump were used it would be only used as a means of throwing off EXCESS HEAT which was not converted by the engine. Such excess heat would only constitute some fraction of the ambient heat used to run the engine.

Offline Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2012, 03:20:10 PM »
...
An engine can be thought of as a heat converter. I takes heat and turns it into something that is not heat. You end up with less heat but that energy in now in another form, mechanical, for instance.

...You may end up with less heat...

Just for the sake of clarity, again, Tesla was not proposing running a heat engine on the output of a heat pump. He was proposing running the engine on Ambient Heat. So the problem is not ending up with LESS HEAT.

The heat in the ambient is vast so as to be practically inexhaustible. We are, in effect, living in a furnace heated by the sun continually, so the problem is not running out of heat. The problem is simply removing that fraction of excess heat not converted to some other form by the engine.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2012, 03:20:10 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #7 on: December 13, 2012, 09:56:27 PM »
That may be so, but what he proposed would not work.  You can't just 'disappear' the heat or convert all of it to another energy form.

He appears to have misunderstood Clausius , Carnot and Kelvin.

I've highlighted the word "ALL" above. Again, Tesla certainly recognized that you cannot convert ALL the heat or make it all "disappear".

He did say, speaking hypothetically: "If the process of heat transformation were absolutely perfect, no heat at all would arrive at the low level, since all of it would be converted into other forms of energy." but goes on: "We do not know of any such absolutely perfect process of heat-conversion, and consequently some heat will generally reach the low level."

By saying "You can't... convert all of it to another energy form." you just repeat what Tesla himself recognized and stated in his article making your statement a straw man argument.

What could not be converted would have to be removed, but he says: "But evidently there will be less to pump out than flows in"

Logically, if you have $100 US dollars and you convert SOME of that into a different currency, the number of US dollars you are left with is less than the $100 that you started with, NO?

Likewise with a heat engine. If you put Q heat energy in and some of that heat energy is converted into work, what you are left with is <Q. Right ?

Perhaps Tesla misunderstood. Perhaps his idea can't work. Perhaps.

But if we want to refute his claim or idea, we can't do so by refuting some other claim that he obviously did not make.

So if we re-frame your statement to more accurately reflect what Tesla actually did say, it would read something like this:

"...what he proposed would not work.  You can't just 'disappear' (some of) the heat or convert (some) of it to another energy form."

So does or does not a heat engine convert some of the heat into "work" or into something other than heat so that the heat thus converted effectively "disappears" leaving less heat than what we started with ?

If there is a flaw in Tesla's logic, I think we need to dig deeper to find it. Certainly we cannot refute him on the basis of your misrepresentation of his proposal.

Offline angryScientist

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #8 on: December 14, 2012, 01:06:11 AM »
I still assert that it must be true that Tesla was thinking correctly and ambient energy can be converted to useful work.

You must use every trick in the book to get around the inefficiencies that Gianna presents. It would be truly impossible if all you had to deal with is the contents of Gianna's presents in his opinions.

Luckily there is the latent heat trick of the heat pump, with out which there would be no way to create a heat sink at a cost in energy that would show any kind of benefit.

Here is another trick that can be employed.
Use of dissociating gases in Brayton Cycle space power systems 40% more efficient
http://www.overunity.com/7814/use-of-dissociating-gases-in-brayton-cycle-space-power-systems-40-more-efficien/msg192994/#msg192994

Offline Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #9 on: December 14, 2012, 02:11:13 AM »
Either there is a thermal gradient or there is not. If there is, then a device that produces work is a heat engine and it obeys the laws of thermodynamics.

Heat energy flows from the hot to cold regions.  The portion of work that can be extracted from that flow is limited by the Carnot efficiency which is predicated on the difference in temperature between the two regions.

In classical mechanics this statement is true even for infinitesimal and arbitrary geometries. Applying that to what Tesla proposed you can see that his idea could not work as proposed.


These are pronouncements and/or assertions and do not appear to address Tesla's specific proposals or ideas or statements of fact.

Tesla made specific assertions such as heat utilized by a heat engine is converted to another form or other forms of energy. That there will be less heat to remove as a consequence. etc. Making an appeal to "the laws of thermodynamics" does not make for a sound argument when considering a possible exception or "loophole" to those same laws, I don't think.

As an aside, An observation regarding Carnot and his "theoretical efficiencies".

Correct me if I'm wrong but....

If your TD (Temperature differential) is Th = 100k Tc =50k Carnot says your engine can be no more than 50% efficient. Likewise, Th 5000k Tc 2500 again 50%

1648k and 824k 50%
4000k - 1000k 75%
Tc 0k - Th (any number) 100%

It appears to me that what this is saying is that "Carnot efficiency" is calculated on a baseline of absolute zero.

In other words. If your actual ambient temperature were 300k (81F) and your sink was a bone chilling 150k (-190F) and your engine removed ALL OF THE AMBIENT HEAT GIVEN TO IT so that NO ADDED HEAT REACHED THE SINK AT ALL and your sink remained at -190F no matter how long your engine ran, Carnot would say that this engine was only 50% efficient!!!

Why? because theoretically there is still more heat that could have been converted into energy ALL THE WAY DOWN TO ABSOLUTE ZERO! Your engine only utilized half that. So it is only 50% efficient.  :o

This, IMO is moronic, too simplistic to have any real bearing on reality and not at all applicable to Tesla's proposal.

edit: (unless of course you use this as a basis to calculate that Tesla's engine would only have to muster something much less than 50% Carnot efficiency to realize his idea).

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #9 on: December 14, 2012, 02:11:13 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Bob Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 680
Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #10 on: December 14, 2012, 02:40:54 AM »
Any kind of energetic imbalance can be harnessed and transformed to power a mechanical or electrical system. This includes temperature imbalance. The example of Peltier modules makes this clear, as does the Sterling engine. The former converts difference in temp to potential difference; the latter to mechanical energy. Tesla's words to this effect seem far from outlandish. In fact, they sound like good common sense.
 
The question becomes even more intriguing when we look at Viktor Schauberger's work with vortexes and their exothermic properties. Hmmm. Maybe there's more to Tesla's words here than sheer musing.
 
Onward, I dare say, into the throng of discussion!!   ;D
Bob
 

Offline angryScientist

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #11 on: December 14, 2012, 03:26:53 AM »
With the engine you want as high an efficiency as possible while operating at a low temperature differential. That is difficult because the greater the temperature difference the better efficiency.

We want the highest coefficient of performance (COP) from our heat pump. Unfortunately heat pumps operate a low temperature differentials. The higher the temperature differential the lower the COP.

The trick is to find the right technologies. The room for greatest improvement is with the engine.

Here are links to one possible engine and some links to pertinent information on heat pumps.

http://www.infinityturbine.com/ORC/ORC_Waste_Heat_Turbine.html
"Geothermal and Waste Heat Organic Rankine Cycle:
The technology developed using a ORC (Organic Rankine Cycle) can operate off any heat source, with a minimum of 125 deg F temperature differential between the heat source and cool liquid flow heat sink."
"If you have a hot water flow rate of at least 180 F (80 C) and 3 gallons per minute (11 liters/min) then you can produce electricity."
"Typical ORC range for this equipment is 80 - 120 C."


http://www.energy.wsu.edu/Documents/IndustServFactsheet-HeatPumps-May%2009.pdf

Industrial Heat Pumps for Low-Temperature Heat Recovery
"Temperature considerations
Vapor compression heat pumps can achieve maximum temperatures of 220 degrees Fahrenheit with temperatures rises of as much as 100 F. To achieve greater temperature rises, two-stage systems can be used. Each stage uses its own refrigerant designed for a specific temperature range."

http://www.heatpumpcentre.org/en/aboutheatpumps/heatpumpsinindustry/Sidor/default.aspx
"Mechanical vapour recompression systems (MVRs)...
Because one or two heat exchangers are eliminated (evaporator and/or condenser) and the temperature lift is generally small, the performance of MVR systems is high, with typical coefficients of performance (COPs) of 10 to 30. Current MVR systems work with heat-source temperatures from 70-80ºC, and deliver heat between 110 and 150ºC, in some cases up to 200ºC. Water is the most common 'working fluid' (i.e. recompressed process vapour), although other process vapours are also used, notably in the (petro-) chemical industry."



Offline Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #12 on: December 14, 2012, 04:20:38 AM »
The point is that you cannot operate it like this.  It is impossible to extract all the energy BEFORE it gets to the cold sink at 150K as to do so you'd need a even 'colder sink' than the 150K to achieve it.

Who says?

I think Carnots formula basically says that it would be impossible for your "waste heat" to be colder than your heat sink. Which is only logical.

So to reach Carnot's maximum theoretical efficiency you would have to extract or convert enough energy so that your "waste heat" was exactly the same temperature as your sink. That is as cold as you could go. Carnot does not say that this would be "IMPOSSIBLE". My point is, the numbers or percentages are deceptive if you don't keep in mind that Carnot uses absolute zero as a baseline.

An engine might have 2% "Carnot Efficiency" depending on the TD and still operate as Tesla suggested. In the context of Tesla's proposal Carnot efficiency doesn't mean much of anything.

It would be like saying, I have a machine that can turn sea water into pure gold, unfortunately it can only convert 1%. booo hooo hooo. :'(

Who cares? at 1% efficiency you could produce 1 pond of gold for every 100 pounds of sea water. Would anyone lament over this poor efficiency rating?

Offline Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #13 on: December 14, 2012, 04:56:09 AM »
There is a guy on YouTube who posted a couple videos that I think warant some careful consideration in this context.

He discovered by accident that he could take the flywheel off one of his little model Stirling engines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyPxNNJQo9M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAyw_dOioMU

My question or observation;

If "ALL" the heat entering the engine cylinder is not being converted, how on earth can the piston make its return stroke, apparently against the heated/expanding air in the cylinder ? Without a flywheel to push the piston back it can, I think, only be assumed that ALL the heat delivered to the cylinder is being converted, and possibly then some, so that the heated and expanded air becomes cold and contracts drawing the piston back. There is no other force involved.

Note that in both engines he had to make provisions to keep the piston from banging against the end of the cylinder on its RETURN STROKE, as it moved BACK TOWARDS THE HEAT SOURCE! To me, logically, this seems to indicate that there is some tendency for this engine to convert MORE HEAT than is being delivered, otherwise it would tend to creep or fly out further and further AWAY from the heat source and out the end of the tube rather than being drawn further and further IN necessitating a rubber bumper or spring be installed to prevent its banging against the end of the cylinder on the return stroke.

Also, a glass test tube makes for extremely POOR heat dissipation, yet this engine is running very rapidly. It isn't waiting for the heat to dissipate through the glass. The heat is somehow "disappearing" in a fraction of a second allowing the piston to return with no flywheel with any stored momentum to push it back inward against what one would expect to be hot expanding air inside the cylinder.

All things being relative, I see no reason why one might not be able to achieve a similar result using Ambient heat as the heat source.


Offline angryScientist

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #14 on: December 14, 2012, 10:14:16 AM »
Gianna, you look a little confused.
Do you understand what we mean when we say that the heat disappears? It means the heat disappears.

The energy of the system stays the same, the same amount of Joules remain within the system. The amount of heat within the system has decreased. There are less calories or BTU with in the system (for that moment at least) and more Watts or ft/lbs available.

http://cnx.org/content/m42234/latest/?collection=col11406/latest

Perhaps I can point out how that happens in this picture.

Let's say there are 10,000 BTU in figure (a) summing up what is in the source and the sink.

In figure (b) let's say that the engine runs for 1 second (so we can calculate the energy easily) it outputs 1 hp that is .706789 BTU/sec. So after that engine has run there will only be 9999.293213 BTUs left in the system plus 1 hp. There are still going to be 10,550,558.5262 Joules in the system, same as in figure (a).

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #14 on: December 14, 2012, 10:14:16 AM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: