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

movieclipsfree

movie clips free

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 482566
  • *Total Topics: 14224
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 166
  • *Total: 170

Facebook

Author Topic: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?  (Read 51915 times)

Offline Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #45 on: December 21, 2012, 11:03:15 AM »
Tom
....I always found it comical that Kelvin and others said a self-acting engine was impossible then when Tesla gave them a simple example of how they were wrong they changed the context by saying it was impractical, as if the truth was a matter of practicality, priceless.
 

Can you point me to or cite a reference for this i.e. "they said it was impractical" (implying - not impossible), I haven't come across that. Really ?

----

Here are a couple variations on the theme (Heat Engines):

This little engine appears to be mounted on a rather heavy base but again, it has a tendency to creep towards the flame. Certainly this cannot be due to the flywheel being out of balance as there isn't any flywheel.

I'm not quite certain where one might locate the "heat sink", In fact, I don't see any heat sink. The heat source is virtually sandwiched up against the power cylinder.

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

This engine is of a somewhat different design, but still there is no flywheel.

But what interests me about this second engine is; by turning the engine vertically and incorporating several other ingenious modifications this guy has seemingly managed to eliminate friction in the engine by using a diaphragm rather than a piston.

He is applying a rather serious gas flame to the enginel, yet he makes note of the fact, apparently with some genuine surprise,  that the engine seems to be keeping rather cool. He thinks this may be due to the vibrations of the diaphragm moving the air over the engine. Of course, as you know by now, I have a different theory.

Although the guy says he is just giving the engine a "wee bit" more flame, it appears to me to be enough to easily cook a pot of stew,  but after several minutes, and even after turning up the flame he remarks that the metal is staying relatively cool towards the top, not too hot  to touch anyway. A result he did not expect. When he built the engine he equipped it for water cooling.

This engine is running at a rather high "frequency", possibly in the "acoustic" range, I'm not really sure.  The "Piston" actually consisting of a diaphragm does not move in a cylinder but rather vibrates like a drum head at the very top of the engine (discounting the attached generator unit).

I'm not quite sure where to look for a heat sink for this engine either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcppEhp2RfA

Basically, I'm noticing from time to time, when observing various heat engines in operation, clues or indications that Tesla's theory may have been correct.

If these type of heat engines can run without any discernible "Heat Sink" or if they can actually keep themselves cool (even while being supplied with a generous amount of heat) then I think Tesla's idea can be more than realized. It could possibly be surpassed.

By that I mean, Tesla surmised that SOME heat would undoubtedly reach the sink and so it would require "continual pumping out". I don't think he ever considered that the sink could be dispensed with entirely. Not even in a "perfect" engine.

To get a clearer picture. That is, to determine if this could really work EXPERIMENTALLY , the heat INPUT would have to be much more carefully regulated than what is shown in these videos. The heat would likely have to be supplied in carefully measured doses rather than just cranking up the flame. The idea being not to apply the heat at a rate which would exceed the rate at which the heat can be converted by the engine.

Supplying too much heat to the engine would be the equivalent of adding too powerful a charge to the cannon with the result that nothing can be determined with any degree of certainty.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #46 on: December 22, 2012, 11:22:26 PM »
People believed him because it stood up to scientific scrutiny. Scrutiny that continues to this day.

Well, actually Carnots theory of, what the heck did he call it? That heat is an indestructible "fluid" that traveled from heat source to heat sink was proven false experimentally, and most of his calculations were thrown out and eventually abandoned, even by Carnot himself.

In something like a Steam Engine, which was what they were mostly going by in those days, there HAS TO BE a transfer of heat. At least in a cyclic system where the steam is condensed back into water and recirculated. Same with a Heat pump that relies on a change of state.

Heat boils water to make steam. Steam runs the steam engine, Steam is condensed by removing the excess heat back into water.

You have to add a lot of heat to boil water and boil it for a long time to get steam. Steam Engines in those days were rather inefficient so when the engine was through using it the steam was still hot. There was so much Latent Heat put into making the steam that it was ASSUMED that ALL the heat passed through. It was a long time before any actual measurements were taken and it was finally realized that at least SOME of the heat apparently vanished. The amount that vanished being equivalent to the WORK performed by the engine.

With a Hot Air Engine or Stirling Engine the heat is used more directly without any change of state involved. The gas performs "internal" work in expansion. The molecules working against their own mutual attraction, then there is the work done driving the piston. As a result, much more of the heat added, if not all of it, is converted into work.

Quote
...However ,  If you have to 'manufacture' the cold sink when one is not available then it will always take more energy to do that than can be recovered as work from the engine.

How so ?

If you "manufacture" a cold sink. Cold enough to run your engine on Ambient heat, and the majority of that heat, if not all of it is converted into work, then the heat does not reach your heat sink. Assuming it is otherwise well insulated.

The engine takes heat and takes out the energy which leaves cold.

If Ambient is your sink and you have to make the heat, then yes. If your engine takes the heat and leaves you with cold, you will have to heat the cold back up.

But if your engine runs on ambient and takes the ambient heat and leaves you with cold then your cold sink, once established STAYS COLD. So you only have to "manufacture" the cold ONCE.

Quote
When I studied thermodynamics we certainly didn't take these laws on faith alone. They were rigorously derived from first principles mathematically  and then shown to be experimentally valid.

Just out of curiosity, do you know of anyone having EVER tested Tesla's idea experimentally ?

I've scoured the internet as well as much of the Thermodynamics literature, even YouTube with all the hundreds of Stirling Engines to be seen there and I have uncovered nothing that suggests that anyone has ever given this idea any serious consideration. Certainly not to the point of actually DOING AN EXPERIMENT to either prove or disprove the idea. It is simply ASSUMED to be impossible and so no one has ever bothered.

If you have some other information or are aware of some experiment involving running a heat engine on a "manufactured" heat sink I would love to hear about it.

As far as I know, no one has ever even made the attempt.

Quote
The problem with the term 'ambient' heat engine is that it implies that no cold sink is available to receive the heat rejected during conversion to another energy form .

That is the false assumption IMO, that heat is "rejected during conversion".

Is that not a contradiction ?

I joined the Faith but I was rejected during conversion.

The heat cannot be BOTH rejected to the sink AND converted to another energy form.

The problem is that the guys who formulated the Second Law of Thermodynamics didn't understand the FIRST! And that's a FACT.


Offline Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #47 on: December 23, 2012, 04:36:15 AM »
I've been thinking about the little engine I posted a drawing of earlier and I'm sure that it wouldn't work. At least not without some minor alterations.

The reason being that a "Heat Engine" in reality, doesn't run on a temperature differential. It runs on a pressure differential. That the pressure differential is established by means of a temperature difference is almost incidental.

Anyway, the problem was that although there is a temperature difference (artificially established or "manufactured") because there is a diaphragm or "trap" to equalize pressure, there won't be any pressure difference, no mater how much of a temperature difference. Not with this simple of an engine at least. With a Stirling Engine with a displacer - sure, I think that might work, but with no displacer,... and with the diaphragm, any pressure difference established by a temperature difference would be destroyed due to the diaphragm equalizing the pressure.

So anyway, I made some modifications which I think could solve that problem.

Basically use a diaphragm piston, a wider piston and cylinder (probably, though not illustrated) eliminate the check vale, (which probably wasn't needed in the first place) and pump some of the air out of the insulated box to create a partial vacuum. It can't be a TOTAL VACUUM, I don't think, because there has to be some air pressure to push the piston back down the cylinder, but on average, the pressure in the cold chamber would have to be at least a little lower than the power cylinder. (indicated by the diaphragm drawn inward on top) On second thought, probably a regular piston would work, but the cold chamber would have to be maintained at a pressure a little below 1 atmosphere, I think. ?


In other words, Hot and Cold don't REALLY serve any purpose in a heat engine except that they cause air to expand and contract which creates high and low pressure. Most Stirling Engines have a "displacer" for the purpose of changing a volume of air from hot to cold and back, or for delivering heat in regulated doses.

These little engines however have no displacer, so getting one to run on ambient heat might be tricky.

If you ADD heat to the cylinder, naturally this will bring the pressure up above 1 atm. but if you take away heat. The cold does you no good if it is still at 1 atm.

If you just lowered the pressure in the chamber, at this point I'm not even that sure you would need a temperature difference.

Why? because it is not Heat, really, it is kinetic energy. Molecules bumping into the piston. So if you create a partial vacuum, there are fewer molecules inside the box. Then when you heat up the air in the cylinder, the extra kinetic energy of the more vigorous molecules moves the piston.

Pu another way, cold, if it doesn't effect a drop in pressure won't do any good I don't think, so the low temperature box wold probably also have to be a low pressure box, I think. Maybe. Maybe not. Might be worth a try though.

Offline Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #48 on: December 23, 2012, 07:58:03 PM »
Some of these terms like heat rejection have specific engineering meaning. Take the time to learn the definitions and you will see such statements are unfounded.

Poppycock. The term "heat rejection" in this context is no mystery to anybody. It is the portion of the heat added or given to the engine that is not converted into useful work or another form of energy (translation: waste heat)

You could have easily reconciled the contradiction in your statement by saying that SOME heat is converted and SOME is rejected as waste heat. But in fact, that contradicts Carnot's theory.

Carnot believed that work was accomplished by a transfer of heat, identical to that of a water wheel where work is accomplished by the transfer of water. He states explicitly that no heat is lost in the process and that the quantity of heat entering the system is exactly the same as the quantity "rejected", just as the quantity of water entering a turbine and passing through it to accomplish work is exactly the same as that leaving it.

He goes on to say: " This fact is not doubted ; it was assumed at first without investigation, and then established in many cases by calorimetric measurements. To deny it would overthrow the whole theory of heat, of which it is the foundation."

Well, like it or not the whole theory of heat was overthrown. The calorimetric measurements did not take into consideration the latent heat involved in phase changes of water first evaporated (boiled) and then condensed in a STEAM ENGINE. etc. The heat that produces work in a heat engine is not transfered as Carnot believed. Does not pass through the engine like water through a turbine. It is converted. Gone. Nowhere to be found in the thermodynamic cycle of the engine. 

If heat is viewed as what it actually is, a form of energy, then it can be seen that it is impossible for the same quantity of heat to be both converted AND rejected.

You are simply dodging the issue by asserting that I don't understand what "heat rejection" means, as the contradiction cannot be reconciled.

IMO, it seems the "Second Law" is rather schizophrenic, leading to such contradictory statements as "the heat rejected during conversion". Further, IMO, any calculations based on such an erroneous and contradictory view cannot be anything but flawed.
 
Quote
Feel free to dream up your own interpretations of the 2nd Law if you like but I can't be bothered taking it further. At the time it seemed logically self consistent and experimentally proven, such that I haven't need to question it since.

And that, IMO, is the problem. Unquestioning acceptance. Which is why I can find no account or reference to any experiments having been conducted that might prove or disprove Tesla's theory. And apparently, neither can you. There is rather this complacency or assurance that although Carnot's theory of heat was fundamentally wrong he somehow nevertheless came up with the right answers applicable to any and all circumstances. I find this rather presumptuous.


Offline Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #49 on: December 23, 2012, 11:18:34 PM »
Lets take the Carnot Engine or Cycle and see if it is Really the most efficient Engine or Cycle possible. We can use the simple "lamina flow Stirling" that has no flywheel for comparison and see if it is possible to apply the Carnot cycle to it so as to better understand or evaluate its performance or efficiency.

First we will examine the Carnot cycle:

The cycle starts with a gas in a cylinder. There is a heat source and a heat "sink".

The heat source is brought into contact with the cylinder. First there is isothermal expansion. The temperature of the gas remains constant as it absorbs heat and expands. Normally when a gas expands its temperature decreases but since the cylinder is in contact with the heat source, heat is transferred from the source to the gas to maintain the temperature. The heat transferred to the gas is represented by Q1 in a conventional PV diagram. Q1 is the heat transferred into the gas.

Next is adiabatic expansion. The heat source is removed but the volume of the cylinder continues to increase, presumably due to momentum of the piston and flywheel. Heat is no longer being transferred to the gas. Pressure in the gas drops and the temperature decreases as the volume continues to increases but no heat is being transferred.

In the third phase isothermal compression takes place. The heat source is replaced with a heat sink which is brought into contact with the cylinder, and "weight is added", presumably this weight, in a real engine is due to the momentum stored in the flywheel which is now effecting compression of the gas and raises the pressure in the gas. Although the gas is being compressed the temperature remains constant due to heat being ejected to the sink. Heat is transferred from the gas to heat sink to maintain the temperature. The heat transferred to the sink is designated by Q2 in a conventional PV diagram.

Lastly we have adiabatic compression. The "sink" is removed, but more "weight"  is added, i.e the momentum of the flywheel continues to compress the gas the pressure in the gas rises. The temperature increases and the volume decreases as the gas is compressed. No heat is transferred.

In the end the gas has returned to its original state and the cycle is completed. It was imagined that during the cycle, work W was produced by the gas, the amount of work being equal to the net heat transferredd during the process.

Thus: W = Q1 - Q2

The Carnot engine, converts the heat transferred into useful work.

Now lets take a look at the Stirling Lamina Flow Engine operating without any flywheel.

The cycle begins in much the same way, heat is applied and the gas expands. From then on however we are presented with a number of difficulties. There is no momentum stored in any revolving flywheel that could reduce the "weigh" on the piston so as to effect isothermal expansion. If by chance the temperature of the gas remains constant it cannot be due to the removal of weight. The pressure of the atmosphere that the expanding gas is working against cannot be reduced, therefore if the temperature of the gas remains constant it must be due to the fact that it is doing work to push the piston out against the pressure being exerted against it.

The next problem is that the heat source is not replaced by any heat sink. In the little Stirling Engine in question the application of heat remains constant.

We can however imagine that due to some momentum being stored in the piston the gas is expanded somewhat beyond its natural limit which could effect some cooling. We might also imagine that the air of the atmosphere on the other side of the piston has been to one degree or another rarefied. That is, knocked out of the cylinder away from the piston. What then is there to effect a return of the piston to its starting location other than its having given up heat in performing work and so contracts due to the mutual attraction of the cooled air molecules in the cylinder.

There again, is no flywheel with stored momentum revolving around to effect compression, therefore it might be surmised that the gas is, in a sense, compressing itself or contracting i.e. performing work.

If it is imagined that the gas in being thus "compressed" or in the process of contracting is liberating some heat, where is there for that heat to go but back to the source, as the heat source has in no way been "replaced" by any "sink". The heat generated by "compression", if any, is, rather, absorbed or accumulated by the same air molecules present in the cylinder in the process of contracting. On the other hand, if the gas has given up ALL the heat added to it from the heat source, there is no need for accounting for the heat generated by the "compression stroke" of the engine. There is, infact NO COMPRESSION STROKE but rather a CONTRACTION of the gas. Upon contracting the gas again is in the proximity of the heat source and the process is repeated, but no "transfer" of heat from heat source to heat sink is evident.

The heat was not "transferred" but rather WHOLLY AND COMPLETELY TRANSFORMED OR CONVERTED INTO WORK. GONE. If not wholly converted the remainder has nowhere to go but back where it originated, back into the gas molecules confined within the cylinder.

As the gas contracts and returns to proximity with the heat source another quantity of heat is delivered and the process repeats.

There is no Q2. (The heat source is never at any time replaced with a heat sink)

Therefore Q2 if anything must equal zero.

WORK = Q1 - Q2

Q1 - 0 = Q1

Work therefore = Q1

Heat "rejected to the sink" is zero.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #49 on: December 23, 2012, 11:18:34 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 #50 on: December 24, 2012, 07:08:09 PM »
My last post contains some, what seems to me, obvious, or perhaps not so obvious contradictions. Yet, this is the way things are generally explained in thermodynamics texts.

When Carnot said that work was a result of heat transfer from source to sink he meant just like a water wheel with no heat being lost in the process.

In the equation W = Q1 - Q2 where work is equivalent to the "net heat transfer" something entirely different is meant. That is heat transferred INTO the system (minus "waste" heat).

There is some potential for confusion when virtually the same language is used to described two entirely different scenarios. One where no heat is lost or actually converted and the other where heat actually does "disappear" or is converted into work.

IMO it is not really possible to reconcile the difference, and Carnot's idea of a heat engine operating just like a water wheel needs to be entirely discarded. It just isn't so. Yet this equation is happily used in conjunction with "The Carnot Cycle" though the two are actually incompatable if not entirely in opposition to one another.

W = Q1 - Q2 means in reality that the WORK performed by the engine is equivalent to the heat that DOES NOT GET  TRANSFERRED TO THE SINK. As far as Carnot was concerned, such a circumstance was "inadmissible". It would overturn the whole theory of heat as an "indestructible fluid".

What we have then, discarding Carnot's concept is something more along these lines: (what really happens in the "Carnot" Cycle.)

During phase 1 Isothermal Expansion, heat Q1 is added from the reservoir T1 and WORK OUTPUT is done.

In phase 2, Isentropic Expansion there is again WORK OUTPUT by additional  expansion.

Phase 3, Isothermal compression, work is done to the system. It is here where "waste heat" Q2 is rejected to the sink. However, in the Lamina Flow Stirling running without any flywheel the "sink" is absent, so the atmospheric pressure pushes the piston inward. the energy is transferred from the piston to the gas, the gas is compressed but the heat generated by the gas under pressure is not lost to the sink.

Phase 4 Isentropic compression, the gas is compressed further, more heat is generated, but the "sink" was not removed as it wasn't there in the first place. The temperature of the gas continues to increase.

It seems to me that at this point it might very well be possible that the temperature of the gas, having gained some energy from compression due to atmospheric pressure and the momentum of the piston on its return stroke, momentarily exceeds the temperature of T1 (The heat source). It is rising in temperature due to compression and simultaneously heat is still being added.

It seems to me that there is a real possibility that at this point the engine is operating very much like a heat pump, in that work is being done to it by atmospheric pressure and stored momentum. In other words, "waste" heat is being transferred back to the heat source rather than to any "sink" and so properly speaking it is not "wasted" or "ejected" or "transferred".

Normally, in most heat engines it is assumed that work done BY the system is useful work but work done TO the system is wasted, ejected to the sink.

In the case of the Lamina Flow Stirling with no flywheel, and similar engines  however, the energy, or heat generated by work done TO the system is retained or returned to the heat source rather than ejected to the "sink".

HEAT SUPPLIED = WORK + HEAT REJECTED

Therefore, WORK DONE = HEAT SUPPLIED - HEAT REJECTED

W = Q1 - Q2

"waste heat" is then limited to heat loss due to friction and conduction or convection or infrared radiation but not due to heat ejection to any "sink".

These type of losses can be minimized. Friction can be virtually eliminated. Heat conduction can be reduced to near zero. Without these two, heat loss due to radiation can be practically eliminated as well. What's left ? a very nearly 100% conversion of heat into work.

Could the work output be used to maintain the temperature differential ? That is to in one way or another compensate for the small fraction of heat that was lost ?
I don't really see why not.

Offline Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #51 on: December 24, 2012, 10:08:42 PM »
There is, I think, another slight problem or difficulty with the notion that the "Carnot Engine" is a "perfect" or "ideal" engine whose performance or efficiency would be "impossible" for any real engine to approach or surpass.

In stage 1 of the Carnot Cycle a cylinder containing a gas is expanded.

This is generally illustrated in thermodynamics texts by a removal of weights. In Carnot's words: "The steam is received into an envelope capable of enlargement, such as a cylinder furnished with a piston. We then increase the volume of this envelope, and consequently also the volume of the steam."

In the reverse operation weights are added to the cylinder to effect compression of the gas: "We condense the steam by bringing it in contact with B and exerting on it at the same time a constant pressure until it becomes entirely condensed."

In the first half of the cycle weights are removed from the piston and heat absorbed by the gas from the heat source. In the second half of the cycle weights a are added back to effect compression and heat is ejected to the sink.

Nowhere is it explained exactly who or what or by what mechanism or by what means these weights are supposed to be removed and added back or by what means the source and sink are to be exchanged.

Imagine if you will trying to operate such an engine. First you have to remove weights from the piston, then replace the heat source with the sink and put the weights back.

The engine itself, apparently, cannot function without the assistance of some unidentified agency which effects the removal and replacement of said weights.

In other words, it is completely inoperative. It can't even advance through any 1/4 of its cycle without outside assistance.

Earlier, I advanced the idea that the energy for this removal of weights and their replacement which is supposed to effect expansion and compression MUST BE due to energy stored up in the flywheel. In a real engine, where else would it come from ?

But think about it....

Is this even remotely possible ?

The flywheel, apparently, is doing the work of removing weights in part 1 & 2 and replacing weights in part 3 & 4 (expending energy).

But in reality, is it the flywheel of an engine that powers an engine ?

Who or what is supposed to be removing and replacing the weights to make this "ideal" engine go ?

This is never explained. This Carnot engine appears to be completely dependent for its motive power on some unnamed unidentified agency that removes and replaces weights. It is fundamentally ludicrous. It cannot possibly function as described.

How can such an engine, entirely incapable of operation without outside assistance be held up as the most efficient engine possible ?

I ask you.

I would love to ask some teacher of thermodynamics trying to explain the Carnot cycle, how are these weights removed and replaced ?

Well, I don't know, it just happens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAfBSJObd6Y

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #51 on: December 24, 2012, 10:08:42 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 #52 on: December 25, 2012, 02:15:54 AM »
Quote
Concepts like the Carnot cycle are stated in terms of processes that are not present in Nature. However we do know that any real system cannot exceed the efficiency of the Carnot thermodynamic cycle. My advice... give up now on understanding thermodynamics unless you are prepared to think in the abstract terms that the laws are expressed in. If you refuse to do that then by all means continue to waste your time on speculation over devices that would be able to break these laws.

There is nothing particularly abstract about pressure, volume and temperature.

If "efficiency" is defined in terms of "useful work" then it is clear that the Carnot Engine does no useful work. How can it ? It doesn't have any mechanism for work output. It can't even lift a few pebbles by itself.

You might as well say that no mode of transportation will ever be devised that is more fuel efficient than the Radio Flyer.

Offline Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #53 on: December 25, 2012, 03:56:03 AM »
I think the second law applies to "unstructured energy".

If you create a sink, you've provided "structure".

Think of it this way"

If you had a room full of fast moving bouncing balls and set up a flexible curtain and pushed or moved all the balls to one side of the room you would have "structure".

Now you could put some levers or something on the curtain and extract energy as the balls hit the curtain.

OK, that would work, you say, but eventually the balls would transmit all of their energy to the levers and you would run out of energy.

Ambient heat however provides a continuous supply of high energy "bouncing balls". Create a cold room with your curtain and expose it to ambient heat and the supply of "bouncing balls" will never run out.

The ones that give up their energy return to the atmosphere and take up more energy from the sun.

Conceptually I can see no reason why this could not work.

Heat after all, is really kinetic energy. The energy of the balls hitting the curtain can be converted by the levers or whatever into some other form of energy, like electricity, so there is no problem with the "cold" side of the room becoming filled up with bouncing balls of its own.

Of course this would not work in a "closed system". You just have to open the window, or set up your "cold room" outside where there is a continuous supply energetic "bouncing balls" (air molecules) or otherwise have your hot ambient air flow through the system.


Offline Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #54 on: December 25, 2012, 03:30:31 PM »
I suppose you might say : well maybe something like that would work on a quantum level but not on a macro scale.

Consider this.

Using the above illustration, lets replace the "flexible curtain" with a large piston and crankshaft.

Opposite the head of the piston we set up another wall, but leave some space for the "bouncing balls" to flow between.

Now on this opposite wall we set up some mechanisms with levers and springs. Here is how they work:

When a high energy bouncing ball hits one of these mechanisms the force of the impact compresses a spring and a trap closes to hold the ball.

The wall is covered with many such devices. We wait until the whole wall is covered and all the springs are "loaded".

Now we trip a master control lever and all the springs are released at the same time. All the balls hit the piston at once and drive it forward. From there on you can imagine that the piston operates as any other engine.

You might say that this is impossible, there is no such thing as a tiny lever or spring or whatever small enough to trap the heat from a small air molecules and then release it all at once, but in fact, this is the function of the "regenerator", the little wad of Stainless steel wool in our Stirling Engine.

I'm not really sure just how it works but by trial and error Model builders have found that Stainless Steel has the property of trapping heat but holds on to it very lightly so that it can be released all at once just by a change in the direction of air flow.

Perhaps the Stainless Steel attracts negative ions or something that create a thermal boundary layer so that the steel holds the heat. Then when there is a change in the direction of air flow or a sudden jolt of air across it, The boundary layer is disturbed and the heat is released. That's just a guess. Don't really know. As far as I know, it has never been investigated. Regardless, it works.

That is why all these little "lamina Flow" Stirling engines have a little wad of steel wool stuffed in the end of the cylinder opposite the head of the piston. It is the mechanism for trapping and releasing heat. The choke or orifice controls the air flow so that the heat is released in metered doses.

As the piston returns, a blast of air is sent through the orifice into the steel wool and the boundary layer of air around the steel wool is disturbed and the heat is released all at once sending the piston back out again.

As with the room with a curtain, there is no need for the "bouncing balls" to ever travel to the other side of the curtain, to the "sink", but the sink still has to be there. If you had the "bouncing balls" on both sides of the curtain the energy would just cancel out and the curtain wouldn't move enough to extract any energy. This would be "unstructured" rather than "structured" energy.

The little Stirling Engine with nothing much more than a wad of steel wool and a test tube is doing a very good job of structuring and directing heat energy.
 
edit: by the way the type of stainless steel wool generally used by Stirling Engine Model builders is just the common stainless steel wool scouring pad for washing dishes.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2012, 02:39:53 AM by Tom Booth »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #54 on: December 25, 2012, 03:30:31 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 #55 on: December 26, 2012, 06:05:36 PM »
Concepts like the Carnot cycle are stated in terms of processes that are not present in Nature. However we do know that any real system cannot exceed the efficiency of the Carnot thermodynamic cycle. My advice... give up now on understanding thermodynamics unless you are prepared to think in the abstract terms that the laws are expressed in. If you refuse to do that then by all means continue to waste your time on speculation over devices that would be able to break these laws.

And how do we know this ?

We might ask the question, if someone were to build a "Carnot Engine" exactly according to Carnot's engineering specifications; Could a Carnot Engine Run ?

Could it run at all ?

The answer, sadly, is NO. It couldn't run, it could not perform one iota of useful work. In order to demonstrate the operation of a Carnot Engine, if one were actually built, it would have to be DRIVEN by a motor.

Let's take a look at Carnot's Theorem:

Quote
"Carnot's theorem is a formal statement of this fact: 'No engine operating between two heat reservoirs can be more efficient than a Carnot engine operating between the same reservoirs.'"

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_heat_engine

But is this really a "Fact"?

I think not. A fact would be something that could be demonstrated. The fact is, in a side by side comparison, ANY engine operating between two heat reservoirs would be demonstrated to be more efficient than a Carnot engine operating between the same reservoirs, if it ran at all, since the Carnot Engine would remain totally inoperative, or would in fact have NEGATIVE efficiency, since it would be necessary do drive it with a motor. It would CONSUME power without PRODUCING any.

So what's the problem?

The problem with the Carnot Engine is that it is based on the fallacy that Heat is a FLUID substance that provides motive power just like water going over a water wheel.

In other words, Carnot believed that Heat was just like water.

That is, if you have a wheel with a bucket attached to the circumference and the bucket is at the top of the wheel, you can get the wheel to turn simply by filling the bucket with water. That is, you can get energy out of such an arrangement due to the mere PRESENCE of the water in the bucket. You get energy by simply letting the wheel convey the water from a high level to a low level.

Carnot imagined too that you could get energy from heat by means of a heat engine simply due to the PRESENCE of heat if the heat were conveyed from a "high level" to a "low level" by the engine.

This is a complete and utter fallacy. The Carnot Engine simply does not work because it is based on a conceptual misunderstanding of the nature of heat.

Carnot's engine cannot possibly be an efficient engine at producing useful work because it doesn't produce any work. NONE. It is supposed to be frictionless, so it doesn't even do the work of overcoming friction. All it does is take in heat from a heat source and dump it ALL into a heat sink. ALL OF IT!, every last drop. None whatsoever is converted into useful work. Carnot did not believe that any such CONVERSION of heat was necessary or even possible. His hypothetical engine is based upon a fallacy.

If heat is understood to be a form of energy that can be converted into other forms of energy then it becomes clear that there is, in actuality, no necessity that heat be transported THROUGH a heat engine to be dumped into a heat sink.

You might just as well heat up a block of steel on a stove and then put it in an ice box. This will produce the same amount of usable energy output as a Carnot Engine, that is, none whatsoever.

You can't get useable energy by simply transporting heat and dumping it into a heat sink the way you can get useable energy from water by simply putting it into a bucket at one level and letting it out at a lower level.

That is all a Carnot Engine does. It takes in heat and dumps it out again but doesn't convert any of it into useful work because heat doesn't work that way.

Heat is kinetic energy.

Think of baseball.

The pitcher throws the ball. It has kinetic energy. The batter has to swing and hit the ball.

If we were to play baseball according to the Carnot Theory, the pitcher would have to CARRY the ball to the plate and the batter would have to gently put the bat up against the ball and the two together would have to walk the bat and the ball out into the field so as to ensure that there would be no kinetic energy transferred between the ball and the bat. In other words, it would take a lot of work INPUT by the pitcher and the batter but nobody would ever be able to hit a home run.

For a heat engine to actually operate with maximum efficiency (Hit a home run) the heat (or hot expanding gas) has to HIT the piston like a bat hitting a ball so that all the kinetic energy is transmitted to the piston without any loss of energy to the sink (the catcher). The exact opposite of the Carnot theory which required that ALL the heat be dumped into the sink (a strike out).

Offline Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #56 on: December 27, 2012, 01:35:41 AM »


As I said before the Carnot cycle is expressed in terms of processes that do not exist in nature (isentropic expansion and compression, or no increase in entropy and isothermal heat addition and rejection). Because all real cycles do result in increased entropy and some heat is lost, this cycle represents the limit on efficiency of a real process. It doesn't matter at all that you cannot actually build a real Carnot engine. if you are unable to accept such abstractions as useful in characterizing real machines then by all means call it BS. Just don't expect to come to any useful conclusions on thermodynamics without learning the basics.

In the Carnot cycle we've been talking about isothermal and adiabatic expansion and contraction. If you want to get into "entropy", that's another winner.

The problem with thermodynamics is it is more a philosophical outlook than a science. Arguing heat engines with a thermodynamacist is like arguing science with a theologian. It is a game with a moveable goal post.

Take the definition of "System" or "System Boundary" for example, in connection with "Entropy".

Suppose I take a glass of water and dissolve a couple cups of sugar in it until the water is completely saturated. The excess sugar just sits on the bottom.

Is this now a state of "order" or "disorder" ?

Seems like order to me. Solid sugar on the bottom and sugar solution on top. To produce a state of "disorder" I would have to add heat and stir the water to dissolve the rest of the sugar. Now there is maximum disorder, chaos.

But if I let this solution sit and leave it to its own devices, what happens. A state of order re-asserts itself. The sugar comes out of solution and forms a most striking orderly arrangement.

The "System" is a glass of water and sugar. It seems to exhibit "negative entropy" which goes against thermodynamics, so what does the thermodynamacist do ? Redefine the system boundary. He will say something like - if you include the room the glass is sitting in then the "total entropy"  will increase. and so it goes with any and all arguments. There is just no way to win because the rules of the game can be changed on a whim. If a Thermodynamacist is loosing an argument about the "second law" he just moves the goal post. Redefines the system boundary until he gets the results he wants or the argument devolves into imponderables and unanswerable questions such as the ultimate nature of the universe.

According to the concept or "Law" of entropy, energy disperses or tends toward equalization or "disorder". But is this really disorder or just a different form of order ?

If it were your job at the end of a lecture to clear all the folding chairs from the auditorium floor and stack them up in the corner you might think it strange if you came back in the morning to find that the chairs had spontaneously rearranged themselves and were back out on the auditorium floor "evenly dispersed".

My point is simply this. Order and disorder or a state of "entropy" is nothing more than an INTERPRETATION.

Which is more orderly, the chairs stacked in a corner or the chairs arranged or evenly distributed ? I would say that the even distribution is more orderly and therefore in most cases Thermodynamics has it all backwards, but then again it is all a matter of interpretation and opinion. A philosophy, not a science.


Offline epwpixieq-1

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #57 on: December 27, 2012, 07:16:19 PM »
It may be of interest to some of the participants in this thread.

A Bulgarian engineer, has invented a low temperature difference engine, based on freon gas expansion, and it can work with water having temperature as low as 12 Degree Celsius. It has been announced several days ago, on one of the the State wide ( National ) TVs. He already has obtained Bulgarian patent  and is speaking an European one. The engineer has developed the engine in the time span of 40 years, and has already constructed 15 of them and has an apprentice with whom are building a commercial version of the device.

http://www.vbox7.com/play:b188f7b607

Offline DaS Energy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #58 on: May 07, 2013, 09:22:45 AM »
The concept has been acheived by frigeration physics and CO2. The first fridge had a bioler with water and Ammonia. The Ammonia heat conerted to hot gas blocked a plate with tiny hole. This caused the hot gas to lose so much energy passing through the whole the gas became cold. Unloke Freon CO2 has all the energy needed tp drive a turbine use heating of minus ten degrees Celsius.
A turbine requires one litre per second at 9 bar force to produce 720 watts.  Heat must be scavenged up to 80*C after which unity cuts in with the turbine generator outputting more Kw than required to heat the water through which the cold CO2 passes  to become hot CO2.
Breakdown 320KW is required to raise 1 litre of water 30*C to 100*C in one second. This in turn produces CO2 of 9,000 bar or 720 KW.
 


Offline saintsnick

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #59 on: April 26, 2014, 05:18:18 AM »
I'm picking this conversation back up 1 year later.  I have the solution to this topic. Tesla was right, if there was a cold sink source you could extract energy. I didn't read this work of his. I don't know his method of energy extraction here, but it doesn't matter. If you have a heat differential or ANY differential at all, you can extract energy from it with 'some' process or another.  But all the comments on this thread so far have been about the possibility of a machine that might extract energy or might create a differential.  Here is a PROVEN method to create a thermal and pressure differential, a method not mentioned here, a method that is Endothermic, that Absorbs energy from the surrounding environment, that Creates a Cold Sink AND a vacuum or negative pressure, a method that can and Has been built into a machine that IS self sustaining once started, a machine that then extracts the potential difference in the form of mechanical energy and converts it to electrical energy for use.  Enter the inventions of Victor Schauberger. Enter the water vortex.  A water vortex, once initiated by natural or man made causes, will create a vacuum in the center of the Double Helix, a vacuum so strong, the water is rarified and cooled as it expands.  This cooling is a secondary process to the initial motion of the water, Tesla's mentioned energy transformation through the wall of the imaginary cylinder, an energy transformation from inertial to thermal occurring in the water, and if you can add more heat to the vortex through a heat exchanging system, made to absorb thermal energy from the surround, the process will become self sustaining and become a runaway process, with the limit of friction, and can provide an output via a turbine.  I don't have any reference here, but look up Schaubergers work.  Quite a bit of history there, from sono-luminescence, to vortex pipe delivery systems, to chemical and nuclear processes via atomic pressurization, to a home energy power unit, to heating and cooling devices, to WWII flying ship propulsion. Good stuff.  Schauberger, like Tesla, was one of the greatest minds of the 20th century.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
« Reply #59 on: April 26, 2014, 05:18:18 AM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: