Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

New theories about free energy systems => Theory of overunity and free energy => Topic started by: Tom Booth on December 13, 2012, 03:01:00 AM

Title: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth 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.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: angryScientist 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.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth 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.


Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth 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.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: angryScientist 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.

Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth 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.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth 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.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth 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.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: angryScientist 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
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth 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).
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Bob Smith 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
 
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: angryScientist 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 (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 (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 (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."

Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth 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?
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth 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=DyPxNNJQo9M)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAyw_dOioMU (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.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: angryScientist 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 (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).
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on December 14, 2012, 08:53:15 PM

Have a look at what he says at 2 :08 in the first video. He explains that the cold side does need a heat sink or the engine stops once it heats up.

He attributes this to friction, which makes sense, considering the relatively enormous amount of surface to surface contact between the inner glass tube (piston) and the outer (cylinder), but this is a secondary effect and has nothing directly to do with what is going on with the gas inside the cylinder.

Also, no doubt, despite glass being a poor conductor of heat, some heat is migrating through the glass. Again, this has no direct bearing on what is happening with the "working fluid", the air inside the cylinder which is the important thing to consider.

The heat of friction is a result of the gas expanding, pushing the piston and the piston dragging against the cylinder wall. There is energy conversion going on:

Flame > Gas Expands > Expanding gas pushes piston > Piston meets resistance dragging on cylinder wall creating friction > friction generates heat.

In other words, the transfer of energy is not a direct transfer of heat from the gas to the cylinder wall (effective heat sink). Even after the gas has given up its heat, which has been transferred or converted into the kinetic motion of the piston and the gas grows cold and contracts, pulling the piston with it, or perhaps more accurately; creates a vacuum which allows atmospheric pressure to push it back there is this heat generated due to friction on the cylinder walls on the return stroke.

At any rate, the question could be settled through experiment.

Free piston Stirlings have been built to such close tolerances that the piston forms an effective air tight seal without actually touching the cylinder walls virtually eliminating this source of friction. Materials even less heat conductive than glass could be used to prevent heat migration through the cylinder walls.

Quote
No heat is 'disappearing'. Its operating principle is no different to any heat engine other than it uses a resonance effect instead of energy in a flywheel to achieve the compression stroke.

The so-called "resonant effect" in this type of engine is pure speculation (and pure fiction IMO). This is not a thermoacoustic engine, though there are some superficial resemblances.

As far as the heat "disappearing"; When a gas expands and does work simultaneously it gives up its energy (heat) to do the work it then tries to get back that heat from its surroundings. i.e. it gets cold. The kinetic energy (heat) of the gas molecules is translated into kinetic energy of the piston or whatever the gas is working against or upon. As a result the temperature of the gas drops. There is no mystery about this  (well, maybe a little) and yes the same thing happens in any heat engine to one degree or another. The more efficient the engine; the greater the temperature drop. The more energy the gas transfers directly into mechanical motion; the greater the temperature drop.

This usually goes unnoticed because the gas, having expanded and done some work generally has plenty of heat around to replace the heat it lost. It seems, or might be said that the gas absorbs heat so it can expand and do work, but this is not really the case and is not really logical.

In a heat engine the gas absorbs heat, expands and does work - loosing heat and is then ready to absorb heat again and the cycle repeats all within a fraction of a second. It is difficult to follow exactly what is going on and in what order, but here IMO is what I think happens:

Heat is applied to the engine. The heat is transferred to the gas, the gas expands and does work against the piston, the energy is transferred to the piston. At this point the gas is expanded to its limit, has given up its energy and finds itself, in effect, "hungry". It can do one of two things, either absorb heat from its surroundings or contract. If there is not enough heat available in the immediate surroundings it will contract.

This is exploited in numerous ways in all kinds of applications.

Under such circumstances as just described, having expanded and done work simultaneously and not being able to find "replacement" heat immediately, the gas may contract to the extent of condensing into a liquid (liquefaction of gasses). The same principle or phenomenon is exploited in some refrigeration systems. etc.

I believe that what is happening in the engine in that youtube video is that in spite of all the heat from friction and conduction the expanded air still cannot find enough heat to replace what it lost and so contracts.

The heat has been transferred to the piston, converted into the mechanical energy or kinetic energy of the piston. The glass cylinder even if relatively hot from friction etc. does not give up its heat to the air readily. Momentarily, as far as the gas is concerned there is no heat readily available to replace what it lost so it contracts.

I think that if heat from friction were eliminated and heat from conduction were eliminated (as well as heat from ambient) one might actually be able to observe a real cooling or refrigeration effect in the cylinder.

That heat could produce a cooling reaction is not so ludicrous as it might sound.

This is, to some degree, speculative, but it is based on sound reasoning and observation, IMO and is backed up by an enormous history of scientific research and experimentation as well as real world applications. It would have to be confirmed by experiment in this specific instance.

On the other hand, I find no support whatsoever, in my research on the question, for the idea that the piston returns due to some "resonant effect". This is IMO a "red herring". Many, however, seem to have latched on to this explanation and you will find many YouTube videos of "Thermoacoustic" Stirling Engines which are IMO, nothing of the sort.
 
A couple random references:

"when a gas expands and does work on its surroundings, its temperature decreases" - http://www.howeverythingworks.org/page1.php?QNum=1257 (http://www.howeverythingworks.org/page1.php?QNum=1257) (second paragraph)

"Isothermal and Adiabatic Expansion.

When a gas expands and does work, as by pushing a piston in a cylinder, we see from the first law of thermodynamics that the equivalent in the form of heat must be supplied from somewhere. If the temperature of the gas is to be kept constant, heat must be supplied to it from the outside, in exact equivalent to the work done. In such cases the expansion is said to be isothermal, ... But if no heat be allowed to enter the gas, as would be the case if the cylinder and piston were perfect non-conductors of heat, the work done in expansion will be at the expense of the heat energy in the gas itself, and its temperature will therefore fall during the expansion. We have seen that the pressure is less as the temperature falls, other things being equal; hence under the conditions the pressure p will fall faster than if the temperature were kept up by the addition of heat from outside.
...
Both isothermal and adiabatic curves are of great importance in thermodynamic studies, but they represent conditions that are only imperfectly realized in practice. "

Cyclopedia of engineering; a manual of steam boilers, steam pumps, steam engines, gas and oil engines, marine and locomotive work"  - http://books.google.com/books?id=JWNGAAAAMAAJ&lpg=PA34&ots=TqYj87FgAI&dq=%22a%20gas%20expands%20and%20does%20work%20as%20by%20pushing%20a%20piston%22&pg=PA34#v=onepage&q=%22a%20gas%20expands%20and%20does%20work%20as%20by%20pushing%20a%20piston%22&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=JWNGAAAAMAAJ&lpg=PA34&ots=TqYj87FgAI&dq=%22a%20gas%20expands%20and%20does%20work%20as%20by%20pushing%20a%20piston%22&pg=PA34#v=onepage&q=%22a%20gas%20expands%20and%20does%20work%20as%20by%20pushing%20a%20piston%22&f=false)


http://youtu.be/OXIZhqypNUI (http://youtu.be/OXIZhqypNUI) (about 4:00 - 5:30)
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on December 14, 2012, 09:52:34 PM
Consider the following scenario, might clear it up.
If you had a flow of heat, you can extract a certain portion as work.
Just curious; from an engineering standpoint, how exactly would you do that ?

What exactly is a "flow of heat" to begin with. Heat is not like a river you could just stick a paddle wheel into.

Quote
If that heat is at 'ambient' temperature then for you to be able to extract any work some portion of it must end up at a lower temperature.

"end up" at a lower temperature or already BE at a lower temperature ?

If that heat is Ambient, the temperature is more or less uniform. So there is no "flow" to extract energy from. Right ?

Quote
Also, heat only flows from a higher to lower temperature. (Zero'th law of thermodynamics and is in fact the definition of temperature).

So where is the "lower temperature" in the ambient ? It doesn't exist initially. First, as Tesla stated, you have to dig your "cold hole".

Quote
Combine those two facts  together and then try to devise a device that would extract all the energy from a flow of heat as work before reaching the cold sink (presumably the 4 Kelvin ambient temperature of the universe at heat death ) and you'll realise it is logically impossible.

Nobody is talking about extracting "all the energy" in the absolute sense.

Just all the heat energy supplied to the engine at any given interval or cycle.

If any engine ever was capable of extracting "all the energy" - literally, in the absolute sense, the engine itself would likely implode shrinking into a virtual nothingness beyond detection.

It is more than a "logical impossibility" it is also another straw man argument and a red herring.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on December 15, 2012, 06:54:39 AM

No confusion here. I was merely making the comment that the you-tube  video showed a device that is entirely consistent with the laws of thermodynamics and not doing anything remarkable from an energy standpoint.

Tom Booth made the comment that more heat than expected is 'disappearing' (or as you point out is being converted to work). I  am simply pointing out that it is not.

Your diagram is entirely correct. Along with the knowledge that the PROPORTION of energy as work that can be extracted from a flow of heat from one reservoir to another is dependent on the temperature difference between them explains why the device as envisaged by Tesla is at best, simply a heat engine that obeys the 2nd Law. Nothing new in that.

Ummm... now I'm confused. I was under the impression that your stance was that the device as envisioned by Tesla was "impossible".

Is the engine in the video violating the second law ?

If the engine runs but no heat is transferred from the heat source to the heat sink then I think yes. That would be a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Obviously, as you pointed out, heat IS being transferred.

The question is, how?

If we eliminate friction in the cylinder and eliminate conduction through the cylinder walls, that is, if we assume that this is possible, we are left with heat transfer by the "working fluid", the air or gas in the cylinder.

We will assume that there are no leaks. No transfer of matter is taking place.

Here is the scenario I described earlier which is what I already stated is what I THINK is going on in this engine.

I said first of all that GLASS is a poor heat conductor.

I know this from experience. You could put your hand on one side of a pane of glass and a blowtorch on the other and you would not feel the heat from the blowtorch immediately. It would take some time for the heat to penetrate the glass. The thermal conductivity of glass is about 1. Just a little better than air (.024) but not as good as many substances considered Heat Insulators like Asbestos-cement - 2, Firebrick - 1.4, Porcelain - 1.5 etc. Just for comparison, copper, a good heat conductor is around 400

Reference: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html)

So logically, IMO, heat transfer from the air inside the test tube (engine cylinder) to the air outside the test tube can be all but discounted, at least in consideration of the apparent rapidity of the heat transfer taking place, judging by the speed of the engine.

This is a "free piston" engine, so there is nothing attached to it to restrict its motion (discounting friction), therefore the only thing controlling its motion is pressure changes.

In a Gas, Pressure is related to Temperature and Volume. These three might be thought of as a triangle. When one rises, the other two tend to rise with it, when one falls the other two tend to fall with it unless something is constrained.

If volume is constrained and temperature rises then pressure will rise. If temperature rises and pressure remains the same then volume will increase, etc.

So heat is added to the engine. The piston is free to move so pressure remains relatively steady. Volume increases freely. Temperature may begin to increase but as the volume increases rapidly temperature may remain relatively constant.

As the gas continues to expand rapidly kinetic energy is stored up in the free moving piston. Once the gas has expanded enough to compensate for the temperature increase it stops expanding. Equilibrium has been restored, except that the piston still carries MOMENTUM. As the piston continues down the cylinder the volume continues to increase. As a result, the gas is further expanded, but has now gone beyond the point of equilibrium. The pressure begins to drop and finally falls below the atmospheric pressure outside the cylinder. As the pressure drops but the volume continues to increase the temperature also drops sharply. The net result is an "implosion" as sharp and violent as the heat "explosion" that originally propelled the piston outward, so it is now propelled inward.

In all of this it seems to me that there is no time for heat transfer to the "Heat Sink", nor does there seem to be any necessity that such a heat transfer take place so as to fully explain the motion of the piston.

As a matter of fact, it seems to me that at the extent of the pistons travel down the cylinder its momentum and the expansion of the gas that results from it would of necessity, result not only in a pressure drop below atmosphere but also a corresponding temperature drop below ambient.

The engine, or rather the "working gas" within it, not only does not transfer heat to the sink, it probably absorbs heat from the sink.

When the internal pressure drops, outside atmospheric pressure works upon the piston to push it back inward and in turn the piston works upon the air in the chamber. This results in a transfer of energy from the outside ambient air to the air in the chamber. When dealing with a gas, Energy translates into heat. Kinetic energy transfers from the outside air, to the piston, to the inside air. The temperature of the air being worked upon rises. The air now being compressed meets with the heat being added to the engine and another "explosion" takes place driving the piston outward and the cycle repeats.

This engine is apparently not only not transferring heat to the sink but logically it is in fact taking energy from the sink. It is in effect using the heat added on the "power stroke" to put kinetic energy (and momentum) into the piston which energy is then used to effect refrigeration at the end of the power stroke. The refrigerating effect causes a drop in pressure and temperature which allows heat to be transferred out of the heat sink in the manner of a "heat pump". It is this transfer of energy FROM THE SINK (ambient) that drives the piston in its return stroke.

This, IMO, if true, would constitute a clear contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics. At least according to Wikipedia which states: 

Quote
Heat engine

In classical thermodynamics, a commonly considered model is the heat engine. It consists of four bodies: the working body, the hot reservoir, the cold reservoir, and the work reservoir. A cyclic process leaves the working body in an unchanged state, and is envisaged as being repeated indefinitely often. Work transfers between the working body and the work reservoir are envisaged as reversible, and thus only one work reservoir is needed. But two thermal reservoirs are needed, because transfer of energy as heat is irreversible. A single cycle sees energy taken by the working body from the hot reservoir and sent to the two other reservoirs, the work reservoir and the cold reservoir. The hot reservoir always and only supplies energy and the cold reservoir always and only receives energy. The second law of thermodynamics requires that no cycle can occur in which no energy is received by the cold reservoir.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat)

This engine presents something of a mystery. Even the guy who built it, (as a result of an accidental discovery), doesn't quite know how to classify it and asks the question at the end of his video. What kind of engine is this?

Most certainly, attributing its behavior to "resonant effect" explains nothing.

A real thermoacoustic engine has no moving parts except perhaps a loudspeaker.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on December 16, 2012, 03:35:36 AM
This type of heat engine, whatever it might be called, traditionally it would be a "lamina flow Stirling" I think, with the exception that there is no flywheel - seems to be the simplest possible mechanical heat engine, and might be a good place to start as far as experimenting with or testing Tesla's concept.

Just a piston and cylinder,... and linear generator.

I was thinking something along these lines.

 
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on December 16, 2012, 04:49:26 AM
This is basically the same engine as in the YouTube video except that it is partly enclosed inside of an insulated cold box.

Unlike how I drew it (rather thick) the diaphragm at top should probably be of some very thin flexible material like cellophane. It need not be taught but rather very loose. Its only purpose is to act as a barrier between the cold air in the box and Ambient air outside the box while still allowing the atmospheric pressure in. Necessary as it is atmospheric pressure that, in part, drives the engine (on the return stroke).

The air in the box should be DRY air, as the air temperature would likely need to be well below freezing. Simply placing a desiccant pack in the box might do.

The yellow is of course insulating material. The higher the R value the better. The white inside the yellow is possibly air space (like a thermos) The idea being to keep as much ambient heat as possible OUT of the box. The heat, therefore, in order to get in must do so THROUGH THE ENGINE and as far as possible, nowhere else.

The gray heat fins that perhaps might be mistaken as being intended for a heat sink or for heat dissipation are actually just the opposite. Air is not very good at transmitting heat so there should be as much surface area as possible. These fins are meant to DELIVER heat TO the engine. The check valve is intended for long term pressure equalization when there are pressure changes due to changing atmospheric conditions (this might not be necessary but well, why not?)

It would, of course, be necessary to pre-cool the box by some means to have any hope of getting the engine started, and, maybe even apply a little heat to the fins just for good measure, but if the theory of operation is correct then the engine should act something like a Stirling cryo-cooler on the one end (inside the box) and a regular heat engine at the other end (outside the box).

Although it appeared in the video that it would probably take quite a lot of heat to run such an engine, I'm not so sure.

Remember that Glass is a poor heat conductor. So probably 99% of the heat applied (by a flame) would be simply lost to the air, going around, rather than through the glass tube.

The HOT end, or Ambient end of this engine in a cold box, should probably be made of something other than glass. The whole heating unit might be cast out of aluminum including fins and regenerator or copper tubing or some such heat conducting material. The inner cylinder however should be as non-heat conducting as possible so as to prevent heat migration into the cold box.

Something like this should not be particularly difficult or expensive to put together.

Of course the piston should be frictionless as far as possible. Friction OUTSIDE the cold box, at the generator or at bearings or sleeves holding up the connecting rod should not pose a problem although the connecting rod itself, since it passes through and into the box should be non-heat conducting.

The diaphragm at top might also be double layered with a dead air space between to help reduce heat infiltration.

If something like this can be started by pre-chilling the interior of the box to establish a temperature differential, then theoretically it should continue to run as the engine itself would be drawing energy out of the box, while the piston is at the extremity driven by momentum and on its return driven by atmospheric pressure.

My over all theory on this is that heat is really Kinetic energy.

Therefore, what we want is not so much a FLOW OF HEAT but a flow of kinetic energy.

For there to be a flow, the energy has to have somewhere to go.

Somewhere other than into the cold box.

Ambient heat is the source, but it needs somewhere to go, therefore, the linear generator is probably a necessity. And it should have some kind of load. Lighting lights or charging batteries or perhaps powering a fan to blow air through the heating fins.

In other words the flow of energy needs to continue somewhere, it cannot dead end in the box, it needs to go out the wires to power some electrical load.

In actuality it would be the load on the generator that is drawing the energy. The heat, from the interior of the box is kinetic energy that can be transferred to the load.

In other words, there is not really any such thing as "heat". Heat is just a sensation. It is simply kinetic energy. So the idea is not to establish a flow of heat from heat source to heat sink but rather a flow of energy from source to destination. The destination being the load on the generator.

Perhaps this is nonsense, I don't know. But I don't think it would hurt to do some experimenting and see what happens.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on December 16, 2012, 05:06:25 AM
If you studied electronics, then you know that electricity is also, in fact a kind of Kinetic energy as well and carries a kind of momentum of its own. An oscillating circuit for example utilizes this electrical "momentum" of electricity. The electrons bouncing back and forth through the circuit like a rubber ball into a capacitor or some such and out again from one end of the circuit to the other.

So, theoretically then, the load on the generator attached to the engine might, once established, act something like a siphon drawing off energy or in other words, continuing the flow or train of energy transformation.

Just maybe.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on December 16, 2012, 04:15:15 PM
Of course, there is the possibility that this type of engine is in some way "thermoacoustic". In that case, the regenerator or "stack" as it is called in a thermoacoustic engine may require a temperature gradient to function.

Personally I don't think so. For one, I read a report on a Stirling Engine Forum. A poster there, experimenting with a large lamina flow Stirling stated:

Quote
The heat tube volume to piston stoke volume ratio has to be very close to get it to show signs of life. You guys that build the test tube models and can't get them to run, just remember that a couple of mm of heat tube length means everything. The tube diameter does not seem to be as important. Although mine is running this ratio still needs to be fine tuned so that the power of the expansion stroke is matched to the power of the contraction stroke. I think that when this balance of power is achieved the engine will accelerate more and the fly wheel weight will not be as important. I have found that the closer I get to this balance of power the fly wheel weight can be lowered to achieve more rpm's. As far as steel wool goes, I stopped using it. The volume of the steel wool is almost impossible to calculate and does not seem to be of any benefit other than a volume fine tuning tool.

http://stirlingengineforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1052 (http://stirlingengineforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1052)

The fact that the volume ratio has to be "fine tuned" seems to indicate that there may be some "acoustic" or "standing wave" type phenomenon involved (like a pipe organ) but apparently this does not involve the regenerator if it can actually be eliminated.

But if there is a requirement for some temperature gradient in the heat delivery end of the tube perhaps some modification as illustrated could provide this.

Basically the entire engine might be enclosed in a "cold box" with just a portion of the tube exposed to ambient by way of an air duct or passage.

This however would probably let too much heat into the refrigerated space. At any rate, it is something to play around with.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on December 16, 2012, 04:50:20 PM
Personally, I think that the way heat is delivered to this kind of engine (Lamina Flow Stirling) involves the sudden release of heat (from the regenerator or stack or from the heat cylinder walls) due to the way the piston "bounces" back when the expanding air gives up its kinetic energy to the piston and contracts "pulling" the piston with it. As the piston returns, near the end of the return stroke, I imagine that there is a rather sudden increase in pressure, the gas having become compacted. The effect being like the piston suddenly hitting a "wall" of dense air. This would then cause a concussion wave in the heating chamber which would tend to cause a sudden release of heat from the regenerator or "stack" or from the heat cylinder walls as the air in the heating chamber moves or "vibrates" and so a very rapid expansion of the air results delivering another blow of kinetic energy to the piston.

More than likely though IMO this "concussion wave"  would be a singular phenomenon, (once per cycle) not necessarily a continuous "tone" or "sound wave" as in an acoustic engine.

"Timing" may be important. That is, it may be that these concussion waves need to be delivered with a certain rhythm to be maximally effective.

Is this "acoustic" ? Well sort of. A concussion wave in the air is a sound wave I suppose, technically, maybe.

Any engine of any kind has a certain "rhythm", frequency, or simply RPM. Call it what you will.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on December 16, 2012, 09:55:46 PM
Here is another idea, probably not applicable to this type of Stirling Engine but it might be useful for helping to maximize the efficiency of any Stirling Engine where a regenerator is used. I recently posted this to the Stirling Engine Forum so I wont repeat it all here.

Elastic (Nitinol?) Regenerator:

http://stirlingengineforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1450 (http://stirlingengineforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1450)

If a Stirling Type engine can be made to act in the way Tesla envisioned perhaps this would help. The idea is to take advantage of the efficiency improvement possible with a regenerator while compensating for the losses that are introduced by its use.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on December 17, 2012, 06:07:24 PM
Another way to keep the hot (ambient) air out while allowing pressure equalization might be to use a trap, like under a sink.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on December 18, 2012, 12:55:13 AM
Thanks for your comments Gianna, I get board when I don't have someone who consistently misconstrues everything I post. It's no fun when everybody agrees with me. Where are all the skeptics and hecklers? I was hoping to hear from TinselKoala. And of course thanks to everyone else who has contributed useful information, input, links etc. Please don't feel ignored. I do appreciate any and all input.

I can't see this working on an ongoing basis.  Assuming the ambient heat is at a higher temperature than than the cold box initially then it will run. Now, if you COULD convert all the heat to work then it would continue indefinitely as the cold sink would always be cooler than ambient.

However we know from Carnot that this is not possible. Some of the heat from the ambient source will be delivered to the cold sink and the temperature will start to rise. Eventually the cold sink temperature will reach ambient temperature and the engine will stop, unless there is some way to cool the cold sink again.

What you say here is, of course, a given. That is, it is the conventional wisdom, the unquestioned truth. Nobody in their right mind would think otherwise or waste precious time and money on a hopeless endeavor that is doomed to failure from the start.

Who was it that said something or other...?

Oh yeah,:

Quote
The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.    ”

         --Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)


But does entropy increase, decrease or stay the same if this idea were to work ?

I think an argument could be made that entropy would increase.

The earths atmosphere and the heat in it is rather orderly and stable. It you could take that heat and let it find a way to escape and disperse through the electrical grid to destinations unknown or perhaps to be emitted by some light source or as some other electromagnetic impulses to finally radiate out into space to the far reaches of the universe, which condition is more orderly ?

If such an engine were found to work, I have little doubt that the proponents of the second law would figure out some way to explain it. What is a condition of order or disorder but a subjective opinion ?

I believe Tesla's theory anyway. At least I won't dismiss his idea until I, or someone else at least makes some feeble attempt at applying it. Or conducts some experiment to test it. It doesn't appear to me to be all that formidable a task.

Quote
Trying to cool the exhaust  is not possible using a one way trap as you propose. If the exhaust temperature is lower than ambient (as it must be for the engine to run) then the exhaust heat wont flow naturally back to the ambient source. To do so would require us to do work. Exactly the same amount of work or more than could be extracted by the engine in the first place. Net energy result of the cycle is zero or negative.

Thankfully, you have entirely misconstrued and misunderstood the purpose and function of the "one way trap", and apparently also the entire manner of operation of the whole engine and that of Stirling Engines at large or in general.

First of all, there is no "exhaust". This engine is basically a Stirling Engine. Stirling Engines do not have an exhaust. The air does not leave the cylinder.

Because there is no exhaust, of course, the purpose of the trap cannot possibly be to "cool the exhaust".

Again, the exhaust temperature is not lower than ambient because there is no exhaust.

The exhaust heat will not flow back to ambient. If there is no exhaust then of course, there can be no exhaust heat. Right ?

Therefore; Returning the exhaust heat will not require any work because there is no exhaust and therefore no exhaust heat.

The heat passes into the box via the engine and only the engine. It goes in but does not come out. Remember ? It disappears! It is converted into work. Some of that work is used to effect cooling, the rest goes out as electricity so as to increase the entropy of the universe. The kinetic energy of the hot air molecules impacts a small portion of the engine. Heat is taken in by the outer hull of the engine and transferred to the air inside the engines cylinder. That air expands and drives the engine. Part of the power supplied is utilized for generating electricity, the rest is used for cooling. By the time this is accomplished the heat has been used up. If there was an exhaust there would be no heat (above ambient) to be exhausted, but in fact there is no exhaust.

The purpose of the trap is the same as the diaphragm in the earlier illustration. It simply provides an easily movable barrier that prevents hot ambient air from mixing with the cold air surrounding the engine while allowing the pressure of the atmosphere through. Air does not pass through the trap in either direction, except possibly a very small quantity may bubble through in the case of extreme changes in atmospheric pressure.

Quote
Your one way trap idea epitomizes what is required to make this or Tesla's idea work.

Indeed.

Quote
It needs to be able to transfer heat energy from a low temperature to a higher one while consuming less work than is able to be generated by a heat engine operating in the opposite direction.

Classical thermodynamics says this is impossible. Quantum physics is less sure, but statistically the classical result holds true.

This engine is much like an oscillating electrical circuit maintained by intermittent pulses of electricity.

The problem with electricity however is that we do not have a ready and inexhaustible supply on hand to maintain such oscillations indefinitely. Heat, on the other hand is in the air, continually supplied by the sun and renewed on a daily basis. The engine takes in intermittent pulses of HEAT to maintain the oscillations at one end and pulses of atmospheric pressure acting in the reverse at the other end.

Possibly it won't work. Nevertheless, it doesn't seem like a very difficult experiment to carry out. Ay least if we can get past the notion that a trap to keep out hot air is actually an exhaust pipe to let out hot air.

Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on December 18, 2012, 02:55:05 AM
Perhaps this will make things more clear.

(It may take a while for the animation to load.)

Never mind, for unknown reasons I'm not able to post an animated Gif here. sorry.

By way of explanation, the dark blue stuff in the trap is a fluid. Probably antifreeze given the temperature. When the engine runs it just moves in the tube back and forth from the pressure changes but no air enters or escapes.

BTW the light blue in the box surrounding the engine is just cold air. Blue to indicate the cold temperature, while outside the box is regular ambient air.

Hope that helps.

edit: I uploaded the gif here: http://calypso53.com/stirling/amb_eng_anim.gif (http://calypso53.com/stirling/amb_eng_anim.gif)
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on December 18, 2012, 07:04:49 AM
Ok, there is no exhaust as such as in an exchange of gasses, but heat MUST be transferred to the cold sink. I'm calling that 'exhaust' in this instance. If there was no heat transfer to the cold sink the the engine would not run.

I don't suppose you actually took the time to read Tesla's paper. But the theory of his is; And this part is not even controversial, A quantity of heat enters the engine. Some portion of that heat is "converted" into "Work". Perhaps some portion of that heat which is not converted into work reaches the sink.

Tesla surmised or believed or theorized that the energy derived from the heat could be used to remove whatever energy reached the sink.

In his own words:

Quote
As regards heat, we are at a high level, which may be represented by the surface of a mountain lake considerably above the sea, the level of which may mark the absolute zero of temperature existing in the interstellar space.  Heat, like water, flows from high to low level, and, consequently, just as we can let the water of the lake run down to the sea, so we are able to let heat from the earth's surface travel up into the cold region above.  Heat, like water, can perform work in flowing down, and if we had any doubt as to whether we could derive energy from the medium by means of a thermopile, as before described, it would be dispelled by this analogue.  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.  For example, if heat be represented in this analogue by the water of the lake, the oxygen and hydrogen composing the water may illustrate other forms of energy into which the heat is transformed in passing from hot to cold.  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.  Corresponding to this ideal case, all the water flowing into the tank would be decomposed into oxygen and hydrogen before reaching the bottom, and the result would be that water would continually flow in, and yet the tank would remain entirely empty, the gases formed escaping.  We would thus produce, by expending initially a certain amount of work to create a sink for the heat or, respectively, the water 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, which means to say, in our mechanical analogue, that some water will arrive at the bottom of the tank, and a gradual and slow filling of the latter will take place, necessitating continuous pumping out.  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.

Now perhaps Tesla was over optimistic. It is not necessarily so easy to get a little heat out of a cold heat sink. Generally the colder it gets the more difficult it becomes to remove what little heat remains. So I see no guarantee that Tesla was absolutely right. Nevertheless, I see no guarantee that Carnot or the other fathers of the second law of thermodynamics were entirely infallible either. One or the other may have been overlooking something. But from my own research and studies, I think there is a great deal of evidence in support of Tesla and I have found no evidence that anyone has ever actually tried to apply or test his theory in an objective scientific manner. Carnot was a man who formulated an opinion. An opinion based on the idea that Heat is a fluid. That it runs through a heat engine like water over a water wheel and so must come out the other side. Tesla had the insight to realize that just wasn't the case. Heat is a form of energy. It doesn't necessarily have to come out the other side but can be converted into another form of energy. Something other than sensible heat.

Quote
The end result is the cold sink heats up until it reaches ambient at which point the cycle stops.

Then you have to move that heat through your one way trap back to ambient. There is no way to achieve that without either supplying work or ambient temperature is less than the cold sink.

Your opinion might carry more weight if you could explain in detail exactly how a "resonant effect" causes a piston to reverse its course in a cylinder and hurtle inward against its own momentum as well as against the expanding hot air headed towards the sink. I doubt if you can, yet Tesla's theory throws light on the subject and explains it quite satisfactorily IMO.

Can you explain the behavior of the engine in this video?

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

There is an additional video I came across:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PflY-AFp15c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PflY-AFp15c)

It shows infrared imagery of a similar type of Glass Test tube Stirling.

One thing that I think is noteworthy is how long it seems to take before enough heat penetrates the glass tube before this engine can get started. The lack of any apparent "resonant" effect is also conspicuous.

My point being that if it takes the heat that long to get into the engine through the glass, it seems reasonable to assume it would take just as long to get back out through the glass to the sink, in the previous engine which is all glass.

I would appreciate it, if you really believe it, if you would tell me more about this so-called "resonant effect" and how it is able to stop a piston in its tracks and cause it to reverse its course in an instant of time, or tell me by what mechanism exactly it is you believe this is taking place.

I personally can see no other rational explanation than that the heat is converted, as Tesla surmised, into another form of energy.

With the linear generator, this conversion takes place on both the forward and backward stroke of the piston. That a conversion of energy is taking away the heat in the expanding gas, converting that heat into work, seems to me the only satisfying explanation.

If you really believe in your "resonant effect" theory than I do wish you would explain in detail just exactly how that works.

You wrote above: "The end result is the cold sink heats up until it reaches ambient at which point the cycle stops."

You seem to realize that once a balance is achieved things come to a halt. When temperatures equalize, then there is noting to drive the engine.

So again, please explain to me how the piston reverses its course once the gas that drives it has given up its heat to the heat sink and temperatures have equalized? Without the momentum of a flywheel to push it back, what causes it to stop and reverse its course and return from whence it came, not only against its own stored up momentum and against the expanding hot gas that pushed it out in the first place but also against the electromagnetic force of the linear generator.

Resonant effect ?
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on December 18, 2012, 03:55:52 PM
It's no more complex than his observation at the beginning of the video that the device tended to oscillate at its natural frequency for a while even without heat applied.
 

I assume you mean this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyPxNNJQo9M (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyPxNNJQo9M)

In the beginning he simply states: "What I noticed by accident was that if I took the con rod from the flywheel and applied a small impulse to the piston that it would oscillate for a few seconds backward and forward within the bore."

He does not specify whether he had been running or applying heat to the engine or not, but later in the video he demonstrates how the engine will run for a few seconds after the heat source is removed. In the comments someone stated : "the extra movements of piston after the heat source is taken away is just the heat that is left behind in the tube being used up." - which he did not dispute.

At no time does he suggest that any oscillation takes place without heat having been recently applied to the engine and at no time does he demonstrate anything of the sort.

I suppose if you really think a heat engine of any kind can run at all without heat then we could ask him that specific question if he is still around.

Quote
The mass of the piston is alternately compressing and expanding the gases. Running the motor at that frequency would not require a flywheel.

Oh, now it is the "mass of the piston" that is running the engine compressing and expanding the gas and not the other way around.

Your explanation is sorely lacking in details.

If you can possibly do so, please take us through the cycle of just how a resonant effect engine operates from start to finish.

IMO, you may as well say that this resonant effect can stop a bullet and drive it back down the barrel of a gun.

Mass in motion tends to stay in motion unless it comes up against or is diverted by some outside force. It does not just stop, reverse course and start compressing gas in the opposite direction of its travel.

BTW here is another video from the same gentleman. He first runs the engine with a flywheel, then removes the flywheel and runs it with a linear generator and shows it generating electricity. He then short circuits the generator coils and the engine stops and refuses to run at all. then he runs it with no load.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9ILlx3XPZ4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9ILlx3XPZ4)

I would say that a flywheel may prevent such an engine from running at its "natural frequency" but it still runs just the same. Without the flywheel to slow it down it will run at a constant speed but it is not the frequency or "resonance" that makes it go. That would take some stretch of the imagination IMO.

I think it would be very interesting to run such an engine with a variable load. Then I think it would be obvious that the engine is capable of running at different speeds and not just at some fixed frequency dictated by its dimensions or mass.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on December 18, 2012, 07:01:34 PM
Another thing I find quite interesting about this type of Stirling Engine and the one in this last video in particular running with the flywheel...

In the earlier videos the guy mentioned about how he installed a rubber bumper in the first and a spring in the second engine to keep the piston from banging into the bottom of the cylinder chamber as it travels back TOWARDS the source of heat.

This seemed to indicate to me that the contraction phase was stronger than the expansion phase, due to some degree MORE heat being "disappeared" than what was supplied.

I explained how this is possible based on Tesla's theory.

The piston is driven out by the expanding gas until a point of equilibrium is reached. The kinetic energy of the expanding gas has largely been converted or transferred to the piston or elsewhere. Once reaching a point of balance, Temperature and pressure equalized, the piston should stop. In most engines at this point the momentum of the flywheel would be needed to push the piston back.

The piston continues beyond the point of equilibrium due to its momentum. At this point it is expanding the gas causing a drop in pressure and temperature. But on the return stroke, the engine is still doing "work" if only to overcome friction, therefore more heat is being converted or transferred from the gas on the return stroke.

The net effect of all this is that the engine converts more heat in the gas into other forms of energy or the heat appears elsewhere as friction etc. but the gas itself is dropping in temperature below that of the sink. In effect, it has, towards the end of its outward stroke, become a refrigerator.

So the piston actually returns towards the heat source with more force than it had on its way out.

What I find interesting in this last video, in light of the above, is the way the engine is hopping across the table TOWARDS the heat source.

Remember the piston bumping into the orifice ?

With the flywheel attached the piston cannot travel as far inward as it would like, but the MOMENTUM is still there, resulting in the engine being bumped toward the heat source with every revolution.

I don't think this can be explained simply due to the flywheel being out of balance. If that were the case the motion would be more or less random in any which way not consistently in one direction, toward the heat source, the same as when the piston was bumping into the end of the chamber, again TOWARD the heat source.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: TinselKoala on December 18, 2012, 09:45:46 PM
Sigh.

Note the oscillation of the Ringbom Stirling's free displacer, which is demonstrated without the engine running, and listen to the explanation of how the connecting tube diameter affected the stable oscillation frequency of the engine. Watch it operate with and without a load.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdq7XAyhk7A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdq7XAyhk7A)

Now read about thermoacoustic engines and resonance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoacoustic_heat_engine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoacoustic_heat_engine)
http://www.aster-thermoacoustics.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Presentation_Multi-stage-traveling-wave-feedback.pdf (http://www.aster-thermoacoustics.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Presentation_Multi-stage-traveling-wave-feedback.pdf)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001122750200019X (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001122750200019X)
http://proceedings.aip.org/resource/2/apcpcs/823/1/1109_1?isAuthorized=no (http://proceedings.aip.org/resource/2/apcpcs/823/1/1109_1?isAuthorized=no)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9aUiojteys

Yes, mechanical resonance is an important feature of these engines; yes, the linear inertia of the moving parts is used just as the rotational inertia of a flywheel is used, to store energy which is interchanged with stored energy in compression/rarefaction of the working fluid.  Just exactly as hanging a weight from a coiled spring exchanges stored energy between GPE and the stretch of the spring: bounce the weight and you will see the system oscillate at its natural resonant frequency. And if a tiny bit of energy is added at just the right time, the amplitude... hence the stored energy in the system... will increase.... but the system will still "want" to oscillate at the same natural resonant frequency. Unless the masses change or the "spring constant" of the compressible working fluid changes.

Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: bugler on December 18, 2012, 10:17:07 PM

I would like to know, does this idea have any merit ?
Peter Lindeman has written an article about this.


He mentioned two companies working on this idea.
I guess we will never see it (like with the rest of free energy devices).
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on December 19, 2012, 12:50:10 AM
Sigh.

Harray! my hero has arrived! yay!

Quote
Note the oscillation of the Ringbom Stirling's free displacer, which is demonstrated without the engine running, and listen to the explanation of how the connecting tube diameter affected the stable oscillation frequency of the engine. Watch it operate with and without a load.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdq7XAyhk7A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdq7XAyhk7A)

Now read about thermoacoustic engines and resonance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoacoustic_heat_engine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoacoustic_heat_engine)
http://www.aster-thermoacoustics.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Presentation_Multi-stage-traveling-wave-feedback.pdf (http://www.aster-thermoacoustics.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Presentation_Multi-stage-traveling-wave-feedback.pdf)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001122750200019X (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001122750200019X)
http://proceedings.aip.org/resource/2/apcpcs/823/1/1109_1?isAuthorized=no (http://proceedings.aip.org/resource/2/apcpcs/823/1/1109_1?isAuthorized=no)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9aUiojteys

Yes, mechanical resonance is an important feature of these engines; yes, the linear inertia of the moving parts is used just as the rotational inertia of a flywheel is used, to store energy which is interchanged with stored energy in compression/rarefaction of the working fluid.  Just exactly as hanging a weight from a coiled spring exchanges stored energy between GPE and the stretch of the spring: bounce the weight and you will see the system oscillate at its natural resonant frequency. And if a tiny bit of energy is added at just the right time, the amplitude... hence the stored energy in the system... will increase.... but the system will still "want" to oscillate at the same natural resonant frequency. Unless the masses change or the "spring constant" of the compressible working fluid changes.

Very interesting.

I can see from the above material (most of which I've seen before) several things, and there may be a few additional things that are of some importance which you haven't brought out.

First of all, there is a vast difference between a "free displacer" and a "free piston". Entirely different functions.

Naturally a "free displacer" suspended in a magnetic field or "levitated" on a magnetic spring will bob up and down when you tap on it. The displacer does not touch the walls of the displacer cylinder. It is not a power piston so there is no friction to restrict its movement.

"Mechanical resonance" in a Stirling Engine at say 100 RPM with a piston and crankshaft is vastly different than acoustic resonance in a REAL acoustic engine at 150 Hz with no moving parts.

The last video of an engine that the guy calls a Thermo-acoustic engine is not a thermo-acoustic engine. It is just a big Lamina Flow Stirling, regardless of what the guy thinks it is or calls it. This should be plain to see by comparing the documents you presented relating to actual thermo-acoustic engines with any kind of Stirling Engine.

As far as the connecting tube. It connects the displacer chamber to the power cylinder. He put in a bigger tube which let the air flow more freely, as a result the engine ran faster. That was his own explanation. Just because he used the term "resonant frequency" does not mean the thing is being driven by sound waves or that it is "thermo-acoustic".

As far as it running with and without a load, it runs much faster without a load and barely chugs along with a load. Naturally.

If it was a variable load with a dial you could no doubt make it run at a range of speeds. If the connecting tube had anything to do with the "frequency" at which the engine ran then you would need some kind of adjustable tube to change the "frequency" there.

You then generalize and say "Yes, mechanical resonance is an important feature of these engines;..." without differentiating between the various types of engines presented as if they were all the same, which they most certainly are not. Personally I would not generally consider sound waves as "mechanical", at least not like piston and crankshaft mechanical.

A piston driven by pressure differentials in an engine is not "exactly the same" as a weight suspended by a spring. A piston in a cylinder of an engine does not swing freely back and forth like a pendulum, nor does it bounce up and down on its own accord like a weight on a spring. It is DRIVEN linearly down a cylinder by an expansive force like a cannon ball shot from a cannon in one direction.

A weight on a spring has gravity balanced by the spring tension. A pendulum swings back and forth due to gravity pulling it downward. A piston is driven by the explosive force of an expanding gas on one side. The only thing on the other side, in the engine we have been talking about is atmospheric pressure.

This seems to me something more along the lines of a man pushing a heavy cart up a hill.

The expanding gas pushes the piston "up hill" against atmospheric pressure, which we might equate with gravity. Heat is the energy exerted by the man pushing the cart up the hill.

At some point the man gets exhausted and collapses and the cart goes rolling back down the hill. It will tend to pick up momentum so that it will roll down the hill and want to keep going beyond the resting point where it started at the bottom of the hill.

The man, or his "energy" has in effect vanished from the equation. Just as the heat that pushed the piston down the cylinder against atmospheric pressure suddenly "disappears" The heat/energy having been exhausted. With the man gone the cart rolls back down the hill by gravity, the thing the man was working against. Without the heat expanding the gas in the cylinder, atmospheric pressure pushes the piston back.

If you have more men, then another man can take the first mans place and push the cart up the hill again until the second man's energy gets exhausted and he collapses, then the cart rolls back down the hill again. Continue this enough times and you have what looks like an "oscillation" or "frequency" but it would be a mistake to believe or suppose that the cart was therefore oscillating up and down the hill on its own accord, just as it is a mistake to believe that a piston in a Stirling Engine is somehow moving up and down or back and forth by its own mass or momentum.

Anyway, welcome.

Perhaps you can say how any of the material you presented relates to Tesla's theory, or does it ?

With an engine running on "supplied" heat. Heat that you have to make. You have to in effect pay every man you hire to push your cart up the hill.

With ambient heat you have an inexhaustible army of men. When one gets exhausted there is always another to take his place.

If the "sink" is the top of the hill, notice that the cart never gets there. but if you attached a generator to the carts wheel you could still get power as the cart was pushed up the hill as well as on its return trip back down the hill.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on December 19, 2012, 06:38:28 PM
Perhaps the observed action of Mr mowerofdoom's engine running with no flyweel might more clearly and accurately be explained by this illustration:

Take our cannon and cannonball.

Imagine that a cannon with a long barrel is tilted up at an angle, having been given too feeble a charge of gunpowder so that when fired, the cannonball is only projected a short distance but never actually leaves the barrel. The ball then rolls back down the barrel reaching the bottom with a "clunk".

If we could quickly replace the first charge with another, just the same as the first the process could be repeated. But if it were possible to devise some mechanism to quickly replace the charges one after the other and time them so that their detonation would coincide with the balls return to the bottom of the tube going off at the precise moment that the ball arrives at the bottom of the tube we might set up an "oscillation" of sorts.

It seems to me however that we would be loosing some of the available energy.

Remember the piston "banging into the orifice" and the jittery motion of the engine towards the source of heat or towards the "charge" similar to the cannonball clunking against the bottom of the barrel. The cannon might also, if it were not so heavy likewise make some backward motion due to the momentum of the cannonball upon its return down the barrel, the stored momentum being transferred to the cannon. If the cannonball were slowed down on its return trip by causing it to do some work for us then it would land much more gently and the power derived could be utilized.

We might imagine the cannonball as a magnet and the barrel of the cannon wrapped with wires in the manner of a linear generator. Then we could increase the charge slightly and get energy in both directions of travel.

Or suppose we could lengthen the barrel and tilt the cannon at a greater angle. We could then increase the charge even more and get more energy back on both legs of the trip. This might be equated with pressurizing the cold box and lowering the temperature if you follow the reasoning.

But the important thing to consider in this context I think is that the energy supplied by the charge never actually leaves the barrel, it is always trapped behind the cannonball. That is, if we assume that the canon and cannonball are machined with such precision that the cannonball makes a perfect air tight seal within the cylinder but is yet free to move.

We are then burdened with no other labor than that of occasionally removing the ash from the bottom of the barrel. In the case of HEAT however, when used as a charge, we are dealing with a form of pure energy which leaves no ash.

If our charges of "gunpowder" are delivered automatically and the charges themselves are inexhaustible in number then it would seem we have set up something of a "perpetual motion machine" that could run almost indefinitely with no further attention given to it.

The set up would however have to be carefully balanced. The various factors involved would have to be regulated with some precision. The length of the barrel, the angle at which the cannon is set, the volume of gunpowder measured out for each charge, the exact trimming of the firing of the charge, the magnetic force of the cannon ball and the number of windings of wire on the barrel for our generator and perhaps most importantly the electrical LOAD on the power output.

If any of these factors go out of balance with one another the system would fail or might even lead to some minor disaster.

To strong a charge and the cannonball is actually discharged from the barrel, too weak and it does not move at all, if the system is set up for maximum power output the charge might be great and the ball projected with great energy only to be slowed down due to the energy extracted from it. If the load were removed, again , the cannonball might leave the barrel. And of course the timming of the charges etc.

All these factors have their corollaries in our (or Tesal's) theoretical ambient heat engine.


 
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on December 19, 2012, 09:08:11 PM
I might add, that if you read Tesla's article previously posted or linked to it is apparent that he did work with some diligence towards building such an engine but I think his efforts were perhaps too ambitious from the start.

That is, it seems he was working on something to power cities.

Many of his inventions were a result of work on this engine, his infamous "earthquake machine", his turbine, "valvular conduit" and so forth were were actually spin offs, or should I say ELEMENTS of this ambient heat engine.

I really don't have a clear picture of just how he intended to put all these elements together into a working engine so at this point I'm not looking to reproduce whatever it was Tesla had in mind but rather go back to the basic principle he outlined and perhaps devise a small "proof of concept" prototype based on that.

If his idea was actually correct and workable than it should be scalable. In this case my idea is to scale it down to as small and simple a construction as possible.

In Teslas description of his concept he says merely:

Quote
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.

This is his theory reduced to the bare essentials without much of any clue provided in regard to how this is to be accomplished other than "by some means or other" which is not particularly helpful.

It is evident however from his description that he was talking about heat and in the above statement he doubtless had some kind of heat engine in mind.

There are many, many, many different possible configurations when it comes to a Heat engine. The "Lamina Flow" Stirling is, it seems to me, the simplest possible mechanical heat engine there is, especially if we can reduce the number of moving parts by eliminating the flywheel.

I would venture to say that if Tesla's idea cannot be applied using the simplest possible configuration, a larger more complicated machine would have no more success. At any rate, it would be but a relatively small investment in time and effort to test the theory by actual experiment using such a small engine of simple construction.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: allcanadian on December 20, 2012, 07:37:22 AM
First we should understand that the people who formulated the laws of thermodynamics had no idea what heat was, they did not understand what it was any more than a monkey understands what a stealth bomber is.
Now let's look at the second law --
Quote

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy) of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equilibrium) -- the state of maximum entropy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion_machines) of the second kind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Motion_Machine#Classification) are impossible

The Entropy of an isolated system never decreases, this means if we put something in a closed box isolated from everything else then the energy can neither increase or decrease. That sounds reasonable enough and they seem to be simply stating the obvious but a person has to ask -- why in the hell do they insist on putting everything inside a closed box?, or as they call it an isolated system. Nature does not use isolated systems nor closed boxes and the concept is absurd.
 
Next we could ask what is Entropy--
Quote

Entropy is an extensive thermodynamic property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_thermodynamic_properties) that is the measure of a system’s thermal energy per unit temperature that is unavailable for doing useful work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(thermodynamics)). Perhaps the most familiar manifestation of entropy is that, following the laws of thermodynamics, entropy of a closed system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_system) always increases and in heat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat) transfer situations, heat energy is transferred from higher temperature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature) components to lower temperature components.

Now what is wrong with this statement?, well they are ranting on about closed systems again so we can just ignore that nonsense however they say Entropy is a measure of a systems thermal energy that is unavailable for doing useful work. Useful work?, what if the work is not useful what then? and how could some energy be unavaliable to do this useful work?. If I did not know better I would say these people are confused and maybe they were drunk when they wrote this.
 
In fact heat is not something it is a property of something and saying an object is hot or has heat in it is kind of like saying water is wet. Now I have to wonder why all these scientists a couple hundred years ago started treating a property of something as something in itself?. Should I create a law saying the wetness of the water must flow from the top of the wave to the bottom, well no that is ridiculous.
 
Heat is the magnitude of oscillation of particles due to Electromagnetic Energy and it just so happens that when we cram enough of these particles together we get something we call tangible matter. This is why this supposed "heat" can travel bilions of miles from our Sun through outer-space at near absolute zero and "heat" the other planets. Does anybody find that strange?, that this supposed heat can travel through a medium near absolute zero(-273 C) and still be perfectly conserved.
Well there is no such thing as heat as heat is a property of matter not something in itself and it always starts as EM energy in matter it is then transferred as EM waves and always ends in matter as EM energy.
 
So one has to ask why all this nonsense about thermodynamics with all it's absurd terminology referring the properties of something as something in itself and unintelligible laws when we could simply use the laws of electrodynamics which explains everything perfectly well in an intelligent manner, no closed boxes required. You see the issue here is that a couple hundred years ago a bunch of old farts who really had no idea what they were dealing with made up some laws to explain things so they made more sense. They though heat was a fluid -- they were wrong, they thought it flowed from place to place like a fluid--they were wrong, they thought it was something in itself--they were wrong.
 
It is no wonder nobody can really understand anything because it makes no sense in this day and age when we should know better. Should we teach our children the same old archaic BS people were teaching their children 100 years ago?. This is not progress, it is not a sign of intelligence and is the reason almost no real progress has been made in this field of technology in the last 80 years. If you want to know what they forgot to mention in their thermodynamics textbooks research electrostatic cooling, as well nantenna technology can convert EM energy in the infrared wavelengths (heat) directly into electrical energy -- no silly heat engines nor closed boxes required.
 
AC
 
 
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: allcanadian on December 20, 2012, 09:22:38 AM
Hello Tom
 
Quote
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.
 
 

I read this lecture many years ago and in the surrounding paragraphs Tesla gives one example which I believe he intended to be taken literally. We have a vessel at the bottom of a lake with a pipe extending upwards from the vessel to the atmosphere above the surface of the lake. There is a hole in the vessel and as Tesla states we cannot win because the energy gained by the water flowing in can never be more than the energy required to pump the same water out. This is the same reasoning behind the laws of thermodynamics and they appear to hold because they are simplistic rules created by simple minds, Tesla was not one of them. 
 
Now fully consider this riddle, how can you use less energy pumping the water out of the vessel than you gained by letting it flow in?. Tesla gave us the answer in this lecture and it is simple -- you cannot pump the water out that is absurd, why in the hell would anyone in their right mind try to pump the water out?. Tesla said the medium must undergo a transformation, the medium cannot leave in the same state it came in and Tesla said the water should be transformed into Hydrogen and Oxygen gas. If we consider this suggestion then we have a vessel at the bottom of the lake vented to atmosphere, the inside of the vessel is at atmospheric pressure and water flows into the vessel through a turbine generator. The water in the vessel is then transformed into Hydrogen and Oxygen gas by an electrolyser which is powered by the turbine generator. The Hydrogen and Oxygen gas then travel up the pipe to atmospheric conditions above the surface of the lake where they are burned to produce even more electrical energy and the exhaust is water.   
 
I imagine some are thinking --can that work?, surely there must be some law somewhere which states this cannot work. About 15 years ago when I read this lecture I did the math using conservative parameters and of course it does work just as Tesla implied, I imagine he did the math in his head while I used a computer. The answer is simple and obvious, on one side of the turbine is water under pressure and on the other side gasses(O2, H2) at near atmospheric pressure and if the turbine generator cannot disassociate all the water then we simply find a deeper lake which will generate more power because the water pressure increases with depth on the water side. Now if the turbine generator can supply enough power to the electrolyser to disassociate all water then what of all that H2 and O2 gas at the top of the pipe at the surface?.   
 
At this point many might be scatching their heads and asking themselves where did the energy come from?. It would seem obvious however I will default to the same BS excuse most experts tend to use.  Occam's Razor --"among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected" -- Do the math   AC
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: allcanadian on December 20, 2012, 09:53:27 AM
@Gianna
Quote
The 'closed boxes' you seem to abhor are simply a tool. As engineers we know it is impossible to physically create a perfectly adiabatic process as represented by a closed box.  However, we do know for sure that the results of any measuring any physical process will, in the limit, approach the theoretical values imposed by thermodynamic theory.

Yes as an engineer I understand this perfectly well and if everyone treated this "tool" as a tool then I would have no issue with it. However most do not treat it as a tool do they?, they imply you cannot get more energy out than you put into a system and use this notion in a universal context. They use the conservation of energy and mass in a closed system to justify the notion that we cannot extract energy from an open system. Why is it 99% of the content on the internet does this, could you explain this for me?.
 
Quote

It is akin to the situation with gravity. Physicists may not know exactly what it IS, but that doesn't stop them using Newton or Einstein to calculate the effects it has.

I would agree a good physicist would say they do not know what Gravity is just as they do not know what a Magnetic or Electric field is fundamentally. Not what it does but what it actually is in reality, now if we do not know what something is fundamentally do you think we should go around telling everyone that we know exactly what must happen in every case?, how would a person know what would happen in every single case everywhere in the universe for all time?, why they would have to be some kind of all knowing all seeing god wouldn't they?.
You see when a person states "you cannot extract energy from a magnetic field"  I would think knowing what a magnetic field is might be a deciding factor otherwise were just be speculating. As you may know speculation is not a fact, they are not the same thing, which is why it should be treated as such.
 
AC
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on December 20, 2012, 06:22:34 PM
...If you want to know what they forgot to mention in their thermodynamics textbooks research electrostatic cooling, as well nantenna technology ...

AC

Thanks, I haven't come across these before. When I Googled nantenna Google insisted it was a miss-spelling and showed results for antenna.

Ah! Nano-antenna. I did come across some stuff about nanotechnology being used to improve the efficiency of solar panels -possibly a year or two ago. but it may be that there was some other principle involved. At any rate, I don't think they were calling it "nantenna" at the time.

Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: picowatt on December 20, 2012, 09:11:29 PM
Thanks, I haven't come across these before. When I Googled nantenna Google insisted it was a miss-spelling and showed results for antenna.

Ah! Nano-antenna. I did come across some stuff about nanotechnology being used to improve the efficiency of solar panels -possibly a year or two ago. but it may be that there was some other principle involved. At any rate, I don't think they were calling it "nantenna" at the time.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nantenna
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: allcanadian on December 20, 2012, 09:55:27 PM
Tom
Imagine what might happen if one wire was positioned exactly on the crest of an EM wave while another wire was spaced so that it fell exactly on the trough of an EM wave. The spacing of the wire must be at the wavelength crest and trough (1/2 wavelength) and the wire diameter much smaller than than a 1\4 wavelength. In which case any EM wavelength including heat and light can be converted directly to electrical energy. This is the promise of nano-technology in that we do not have to accept things the way they are and we can engineer materials, Meta-materials, to do things no other materials can.

Some materials bend Em waves around an object rendering it invisible to those EM waves, some materials can conduct then not and some new materials are attracted or repelled by magnetic fields then these properties can be switched off. Can you imagine a material which interacts with a magnetic field in one instance then is switched off in the next so that it has no magnetic properties. Engineered materials with properties which are variable by design, intelligent design.
Ferrofluid is a good example and is fluid outside the presence of a magnetic field yet approaches solidity within it.

It's kind of funny that most experts 50 or so years ago would have stated categorically that this was impossible and in the realm of fantasy and crackpots but here it is. This is the problem with many experts, they try to define reality within the confines of their own understanding so much that they start to honestly believe what they think must be the only reality there is which is a form of delusion. As such I like to keep an open mind or objectivity about these things because the only real facts we have suggest we do not know everything, in fact they suggest we have not even begun to scratch the surface of what is possible.

Regards
AC

Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on December 20, 2012, 09:57:24 PM
Hello Tom

I read this lecture many years ago and in the surrounding paragraphs Tesla gives one example which I believe he intended to be taken literally. We have a vessel at the bottom of a lake...

Tesla said the medium must undergo a transformation, the medium cannot leave in the same state it came in and Tesla said the water should be transformed into Hydrogen and Oxygen gas. ...

About 15 years ago when I read this lecture I did the math using conservative parameters and of course it does work just as Tesla implied,... ...and if the turbine generator cannot disassociate all the water then we simply find a deeper lake which will generate more power....  ...Now if the turbine generator can supply enough power to the electrolyser to disassociate all water then what of all that H2 and O2 gas at the top of the pipe at the surface?.   
 
...Do the math   AC

Thanks, this gives me a different perspective. When reading Tesla's statement in this regard, I considered it as having been made for illustrative purposes only.

Water in powering a turbine does not of itself automatically dissociate into Hydrogen and Oxygen. The power generated would have to be used for that purpose. Assuming however that this is possible, it seems to me that the lake would have to be extremely deep and the water pressure extremely high so that the flow of water entering the system could be kept to a minimum. The electrolyzer would also have to be very efficient so as to be able to convert all of the water as fast as it flowed in. It seems to, that if all this could be accomplished, the water stream powering the turbine would have such force that the turbine would have to be of some special construction to be able to withstand such high pressures. In the end, very little energy would be gained, as practically, if not all the energy would be used up in the electrolysis, however there is the HHO which, it seems, might turn all this to some advantage.

I still don't think that Tesla was putting this idea forward as anything more that an illustration. The major drawback of the idea, from my own perspective is I don't have a deep lake in my back yard, and if I did, I certainly wouldn't have the means to build an underwater bunker at the bottom of it.

I think Tesla's point in using the illustration was that unlike water which is not automatically decomposed into its gaseous elements at the point of energy conversion heat as a form of energy, (rather than a fluid) IS converted or can be converted obviating any necessity that it be removed.

Heat is removed in the process of conversion itself AS-IF, the water, in giving up its energy to the turbine automatically decomposed into its elements in the process.

Another problem with the tank at the bottom of the lake idea, I think, is that if there is not enough energy to electrolyze the water at a shallow depth and so you sink the tank deeper, so as to resolve the problem, not only is the water pressure going to increase but the atmospheric pressure working against the operation will increase proportionately, would there actually be any gain by taking the whole operation deeper ?

At any rate, of the two proposals, The tank in the lake vs the conversion of ambient heat, I would say that the conversion of ambient heat holds out more promise and should be easier to implement if it is in fact possible.

I also think that although Carnot's concept of heat was wrong, his basic conclusions were nevertheless pretty much correct. For example he gives us this insight:

Quote
Now if there were any method of using heat preferable to that which we have employed, that is to say, if it were possible that the caloric should produce, by any process whatever, a larger quantity of motive power than that produced in our first series of operations, it would be possible, by diverting a portion of this power, to effect a return of caloric, by the method just indicated, from the body B to the body A that is, from the refrigerator to the source and thus to re-establish things in their original state, and to put them in position to recommence an operation exactly similar to the first one, and so on : there would thus result not only the perpetual motion, but an indefinite creation of motive power without consumption of caloric or of any other agent whatsoever. Such a creation is entirely contrary to the ideas now accepted, to the laws of mechanics and of sound physics ; it is inadmissible.*

* The objection will perhaps here be made that perpetual motion has only been demonstrated to be impossible in the case of mechanical actions, and that it may not be so when we employ the agency of heat or of electricity; but can we conceive of the phenomena of heat and of electricity as due to any other cause than some motion of bodies, and, as such. should they not be subject to the general laws of mechanics? Besides do we not know a posteriori that all the attempts made to produce perpetual motion by any means whatever have been fruitless ; that no truly perpetual motion has ever been produced, meaning by that, a motion which continues indefinitely without change in the body used as an agent ?

We may hence conclude that the maximum motive power resulting from the use of steam is also the maximum motive power which can be obtained by any other means.

It seems he was groping towards the Kinetic theory even at this time (Reflections on the Motive Power of Heat - 1824)

Which theory he and others soon afterward adopted.

In other words, even though there was no transfer of a fluid "caloric", if "caloric" be replaced by "kinetic energy" we arrive at much the same result. At least most of the time. As far as Heat Engines are concerned.

For example, what is the difference if we transpose the two phrases in this paragraph:

"if it were possible that the caloric (Kinetic energy) should produce, by any process whatever, a larger quantity of motive power than that produced in our first series of operations, it would be possible, by diverting a portion of this power, to effect a return of caloric (kinetic energy), by the method just indicated, from the body B to the body A that is, from the refrigerator to the source and thus to re-establish things in their original state, and to put them in position to recommence an operation exactly similar to the first one, and so on : there would thus result not only the perpetual motion, but an indefinite creation of motive power without consumption of caloric (kinetic energy) or of any other agent whatsoever."

What happens to the argument ?

We can read "motive power" as "Kinetic energy" as well, ignoring the ambiguities this creates; the basic premise remains: You can't get more energy out than you put in.

But, if we read these 1800's sources carefully, when they speak of the operation of heat engines, they can't seem to really see beyond the Steam Engine. That is, a HEAT engine if we define heat in relative terms as a concentration of Kinetic Energy ABOVE the Ambient which is in general equilibrium.

That is, the assumption is that you have to MAKE the heat. Create a disturbance or imbalance in the "caloric". Build a fire.

If you then extract energy from the heat how ever you look at it, bringing it down to ambient, if you want to repeat the process IN A CLOSED LOOP. you will have to heat the "working fluid" up again. Make the water condensed out back into steam to recreate or maintain the imbalance. How else can you get energy out of heat than with heat ? To close the loop you'll have to put the kinetic energy back where it started. Right ?

Yes, Right. They were all right, Carnot, Clausius, Lord Kelvin, they all knew exactly what they were talking about. Logically, if you have to make heat to get it above ambient to use it ,and then you do use it and you end up with cold, you will have to heat the cold up again to get the heat to use it again. There is no way you can win.

Tesla scratched his head a little bit and said what if instead of using heat (above ambient), you make a "cold hole". Then you can use the heat of the ambient as it flows in naturally and you will never run out so you don't have to put it back. It is no longer a closed loop. It is a linear system.

Sunshine Hits the earth >>>> Hot Ambient > Heat > Heat converted to Pressure in a Heat engine > Motive Force (work) > Electricity Generation > Eventual heat dissipation into Outer Space >>>>>

It becomes a unidirectional flow. A temporary interruption of the flow of energy emanating from the sun to be utilized before it continues on its way to other planets. Not a closed loop, not a constant uphill battle to put the energy back up at a higher level to repeat a cycle. It isn't a cycle, its a flow like a river that can be intercepted so as to extract some energy.

Maybe.

At least it seems like there is some remote possibility it could work. Not sure how much energy you could produce that way but it certainly seems worth a try.

As far as I can see the idea was dismissed "posteriori". It's never been done before, therefore it can't be done, case closed.

So nobody has ever even bothered to try. At least I can find no history of anyone having ever put a heat engine in an ice box.

Until someone actually does the experiment, I wouldn't write it off as an impossibility.

When it was found, through actual experiment that Heat and Work were equivalent and interchangeable Lord Kelvin put forth the extraordinary argument:

Quote
"It is impossible, by means of inanimate material agency, to derive mechanical effect from any portion of matter by cooling it below the temperature of the coldest of the surrounding objects*

(In the footnote)

* If this axiom be denied for all temperatures it would have to be
admitted that a self-acting machine might be set to work and produce mechanical effect by cooling the sea or earth. with no limit but the total loss 
of heat from the earth and sea. or, in reality, from the whole material
world.


There continues the tacit belief that Heat is a material substance that if not in fact permanent as the "coloric" might instead be "consumed" and put entirely out of existence.

Tesla recognized the fallacy. Heat is energy and can be converted.

It is neither permanent, nor can it be "consumed" or entirely put out of existence.

There is no danger that Tesla's engine would cool down the planet or the entire universe. Heat turned into electricity and used would sooner or later re-emerge as heat. In incandescent lamps, cook stoves, space heaters, friction of moving parts etc. etc.

It seems there was an element of "fear of the unknown" at work at the time.

In another passage he appears to admit the possibility of a "self-acting engine" but then denies it:

"...Now it is obvious that A might be made to spend part of its work in working B backwards, and the whole might be made self-acting... We should thus have a self-acting machine, capable of drawing heat constantly from a body surrounded by others at a higher temperature, and converting it into mechanical effect. But this is contrary to the axiom."

I would say that an axiom is not an experimental proof.

To simply state "an airplane can't fly if it is heavier than air" does not make it true, but such a statement will nevertheless stand and be assumed to be true until someone with some temerity comes along and actually puts the effort into building such a machine and does the experiment to see if it is true or not.

Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: allcanadian on December 21, 2012, 01:19:47 AM
Tom
Quote

Water in powering a turbine does not of itself automatically dissociate into Hydrogen and Oxygen. The power generated would have to be used for that purpose. Assuming however that this is possible, it seems to me that the lake would have to be extremely deep and the water pressure extremely high so that the flow of water entering the system could be kept to a minimum. The electrolyzer would also have to be very efficient so as to be able to convert all of the water as fast as it flowed in. It seems to, that if all this could be accomplished, the water stream powering the turbine would have such force that the turbine would have to be of some special construction to be able to withstand such high pressures. In the end, very little energy would be gained, as practically, if not all the energy would be used up in the electrolysis, however there is the HHO which, it seems, might turn all this to some advantage.

If memory serves me correct the tank in a lake scenario balanced at 30,000 feet of depth which make it completely impractical however that has no bearing on whether it works or not. 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.
 
Now some might strongly disagree with my being overly critical of the scientific community so I will introduce a few relevant facts--
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685008/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685008/)
A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices.

http://www.discovercreation.org/newsletters/ScientistsFalsifyResearchResults.htm (http://www.discovercreation.org/newsletters/ScientistsFalsifyResearchResults.htm)
Scientists Invent Results:Times Online (June 4, 2009) headline reports that “One in seven scientists say colleagues fake data.” That figure applies to serious breaches of “acceptable conduct by inventing results.” The article went on to say that “46 per cent say that they have observed fellow scientists engage in ‘questionable practices’, such as presenting data selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in response to pressure from a funding source.”

http://phys.org/news162795064.html (http://phys.org/news162795064.html)
On average, across the surveys, around 2% of scientists admitted they had "fabricated" (made up), "falsified" or "altered" data to "improve the outcome" at least once, and up to 34% admitted to other questionable research practices including "failing to present data that contradict one's own previous research" and "dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/why_scientists_lie_and_what_to.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/why_scientists_lie_and_what_to.html)
 
 
Quote

The article went on to say that “46 per cent say that they have observed fellow scientists engage in ‘questionable practices’, such as presenting data selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in response to pressure from a funding source.”

Imagine that, almost one half of the scientists changed their conclusions or presented data selectively because of peer pressure as well as dismissing data which contradicted their previous work and 72% engaged in other questionable research practices-- Oh dear we have problems in wonderland.
 
I find this comical because I work with professionals on a daily basis and can tell you as a fact they are no better than anyone you will meet on any street corner. They lie and cheat, some are alcoholics while others use drugs, they cheat on their wives and fabricate shit to cover up their mistakes. So why do some people put scientists and other professionals up on a pedestal as if they were some sort of god and science their religion?, it is absurd. I can guarantee you that if you knew these people you would think very differently of them and we have to take the good with the bad. Which is why we must always question their motives as well as their data in every case and this is what real science is all about -- the real facts.
As well there is a great deal of evidence which suggests that at no other time in history has science been so corrupt however it is not common knowledge. Corporate agendas dominate science and peer pressure to fall in line with the general opinion is rampant.
AC
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on December 21, 2012, 02:14:05 AM
Of course this would work. One expression of it is a solar powered stirling engine.

Well...

That would be: Sunshine Hits solar powered stirling >> Heat > Heat converted to Pressure in a Heat engine > Motive Force (work) > Electricity Generation > Eventual heat dissipation into Outer Space >>>>>

Leaving out the intermediary of  > Hot Ambient > between Sun and heat engine.

Possibly a minor difference. Possibly not.

Using Solar Energy stored in the heat of the atmosphere would mean you could run the engine day AND NIGHT.

So why wouldn't it work ?

As far as I can figure, It won't work because in 1824 a guy named Carnot suggested rather alarmingly that such a thing was impossible and people believed him.

To be fair to Carnot though, when he said "perpetual motion" was impossible, his definition of perpetual motion should, perhaps, be kept in mind. I'm not quite sure if it would really apply. He wrote:

Quote
The general and philosophical acceptation of the words perpetual motion
should comprehend not only a motion capable of indefinite continuance
after it has been started, but also the action of an apparatus, of a set of
bodies, capable of creating motive power in an unlimited quantity, and of
setting in motion successively all the bodies of nature, if they are originally
at rest, and of destroying in them the principle of inertia, and finally capa-
ble of furnishing in itself all the forces necessary to move the entire uni-
verse, to prolong and to constantly accelerate its motion.

This seems something quite far and beyond what most people today might consider "perpetual motion". Something like this little machine perhaps:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq3K6Ma0wIU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq3K6Ma0wIU)

I can hardly imagine this little heat engine... "creating motive power in an unlimited quantity" etc.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: bugler on December 21, 2012, 08:39:28 AM
...
All Canadian, did you write the Kornelson transformer pdf?


If so could you tell us something about it?


(I pm you in energetic forum but  you don't answer).
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth 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.

Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth 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.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth 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.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth 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.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth 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.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth 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.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth 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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAfBSJObd6Y)
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth 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.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth 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.

Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth 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.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth 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).
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth 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.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: epwpixieq-1 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 (http://www.vbox7.com/play:b188f7b607)
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: DaS Energy 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.
 
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: saintsnick 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.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: memoryman on April 28, 2014, 03:42:26 AM
Thank you for these posts.
I have been searching for a way to convert ambient heat to another form for years.
So far I have not done any experiments, but am encouraged by the replies.
Please keep the discussion going.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on April 17, 2015, 06:29:38 AM
Hi, I have a campaign going to raise some funds to build a prototype engine based on the information provided here and on other forums. The idea being to test Tesla's idea in a practical way. There is no guarantee it will work, but I don't think we can really rule out the possibility until someone tries. I have recently been encouraged by coming across a little device called a fire piston which appears to be able to generate considerable heat by compressing a relatively small volume of air:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mvlm-BiCU2k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mvlm-BiCU2k)

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/exploring-cold-hole-technology/x/10539009 (https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/exploring-cold-hole-technology/x/10539009)
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: vasik041 on April 17, 2015, 07:10:29 AM
you can build something like this
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: MarkE on April 17, 2015, 11:02:59 AM
Sorry guys, but you need a heat source and a lower temperature heat sink.  Otherwise that pesky Second Law will eat your lunch.  Now, that said, there are various heat sinks available at least for small scale power.  You can for instance exchange heat between the surface and depths of a pond.  And if you are really clever, there is always the sky window.  In space no one can see you freeze.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on April 17, 2015, 11:18:25 AM
you can build something like this

Something like that, sort of. As drawn though, I don't understand how the device illustrated could work, for a couple reasons. There appears to be no compressor, without which it seems to me that pressure would simply equalize (or remain equal) within the loop and nothing would happen. More or less like a refrigerator that wasn't plugged in.

Also there is no indication of any means of power output. If energy (environmental heat) is going in, it would also have to come out in some form somewhere.

There would presumably, if things got moving somehow, be a build-up of heat in the pipes before the throttling device/turbine and a cooling in the condensation chamber but it does not appear that this temperature difference is being utilized.

Tesla's engine consisted, in part, of an air compressor and included some possibility of  liquefying air, apparently, it would seem then that his system was, or consisted of in part, an air-cycle refrigerator. This obviates the need for any kind of exotic gas or fluid such as Freon making the apparatus simpler and safer and easier to build I should think using air as a working fluid.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: vasik041 on April 17, 2015, 12:21:29 PM
Quote
There appears to be no compressor
We have free "compressor" - gravity

Quote
Also there is no indication of any means of power output.
there is a "turbine" near reservoir top on right side

yes, picture is not perfect :)
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: pix on April 17, 2015, 02:16:59 PM

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.



Sorry, but every Heat Pump COP>1 is because it draws energy from AMBIENT Air.
Every low temperature boiling liquid, like commonly used refrigerants will exchange energy from surrounding air through evaporator coils.
If, for example at given compressor suction pressure refrigerant still boils at - 30 degC, it will exchange energy from surrounding air at -10 degC.
It is a matter of temperature difference of evaporating refrigerant and surrounding AMBIENT medium- air, ground or water.


Cheers,
Pix
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: pix on April 17, 2015, 02:20:11 PM
you can build something like this
Nothing new under the Sun :-)
Every ORC system will do better. Let's take a look at his one, for example:
http://matteranenergy.us/animation.html


Cheers,
pix
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on April 18, 2015, 06:40:38 AM
We have free "compressor" - gravity
there is a "turbine" near reservoir top on right side

yes, picture is not perfect :)

OK, the question on my mind then is; if it were that simple, why hasn't it been done and in use long ago generating free power for everyone already?

The same question could be asked regarding my own, or Tesla's version of the idea, which is, as far as I can figure, a heat engine driving a heat-pump of some kind which delivers the "fuel" (heat) to run the heat engine, or rather, in actual fact, I believe that Tesla's idea was to use the heat-pump or refrigeration system to throw off excess heat from the heat-sink, the ambient heat being a given free for the taking.

He said: "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...   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, ... necessitating continuous pumping out.  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 whole idea being to create and maintain an artificial heat sink or "cold hole" for the sake of having a temperature differential to run a heat engine. As the heat being extracted from the "cold hole" can be easily reclaimed and used as Tesla claimed: "What is not converted in flowing down can just be raised up with its own energy"

This all seems relatively simple and straightforward to me. Yet since Tesla wrote his paper, scouring the internet for the past several years I haven't come across a single instance of anyone actually attempting to build any such device.

I suspect one of the main reasons is that it is perceived to be an impossibility in the mind of many and so there has been a reluctance to invest any time, money or effort in something that is clearly a violation of the second law of thermodynamics (in the opinion of many).

Quote
"The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."
Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1915), chapter 4

I do tend to think though that Tesla had it slightly wrong.

Pumping the heat out of a "cold hole" and raising it back up and depositing it at a higher temperature is looking at it backwards. It is difficult and IMO unnecessary.

The heat pump rather should fist concentrate and use the heat from the atmosphere first, dump any excess, the cold is what's left over. It would be, IMO, easier to remove the excess heat while it is already at a higher than ambient temperature rather than attempt to remove it from the "cold hole" directly. Use the heat as much as possible dump the excess and then simply deposit the cold into the cold hole.

In that way you are removing the excess heat BEFORE it gets into the "cold hole" rather than after.

I don't think that the second law even applies where a physical substance, like air molecules, are moving through the system. Warm air being compressed to concentrate and remove/convert the heat therein to another form of energy, the cold spent air then being exhausted.

I think of it this way: Imagine a heat engine is a gasoline engine. Air molecules are like little cans of gasoline. The sun fills these little gas cans with fuel.

I see no problem with an engine running some kind of pump to deliver cans of fuel to itself and then discarding the empty cans. I don't think anyone would argue that such a thing is an impossibility.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: DaS Energy on April 18, 2015, 07:07:01 AM


First rule of inventing is forget what you have been taught for they are wrong. Do what your own eyes tell you and you will get it right.

With regard to the doomsayers, making a piston slide up and down a pipe is so simple, yet it took many a million of years before man did so!
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: vasik041 on April 18, 2015, 08:21:36 AM
May be this helps...
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on April 18, 2015, 10:16:00 AM
May be this helps...

Well... seems rather light on thermodynamic principles.

One thing I've found interesting lately are articles on various websites regarding compressed air and heat reclamation.

ex: "as much as 100% of the electrical energy used by an industrial air compressor is converted into heat"

http://us.kaeser.com/Products_and_Solutions/Rotary-screw-compressors/heat-recovery/default.asp

"In fact, 100% of the electrical energy used by an industrial air compressor is converted into heat"

http://kaesertalksshop.com/2013/09/18/turning-air-compressors-into-an-energy-source/

Figures vary slightly, usually a little more conservative, like 96% or 98% etc. but all these are conventional sources of information not "free energy" sites.

If that 100% heat can be reclaimed and utilized... There is still the compressed air... waiting to expand and do some work.

Doesn't this show up an obvious potential for "overunity"?

I think it is misleading though to say that the electricity is converted into heat. The heat is already in the air. Compressing the air so-to-say squeezes out the heat. The compressed air is then something like a compressed spring ready to re-expand once released from confinement. This re-expansion takes place at the expense of the air's own internal energy, the result being that the air thus released turns bone-chilling cold.

If 100% of the energy used to compress the air can be made available for use to compress more air, and the air being released can run a turbine or pneumatic engine of some kind (which results in additional cooling converting even more of the air's internal energy into mechanical/electrical energy) and the resulting cold can be utilized to deepen the "cold hole" or sink to make the heat engine/compressor even more efficient...

Further... the compressed air could be stored for a time and expanded through a simple solar collector (pipes painted black under glass) Not that I think that is even necessary, but while we are at it, why not?

What am I missing here that makes extracting solar heat/energy from the air impossible?

The problem with air-compressors is generally how to keep them cool. Cooling fins, water jackets, radiators, fans, anything to get rid of all that damn excess heat so the compressor pistons don't seize.

I don't think all that damn nuisance heat comes from the electricity used to run the compressor. That heat is solar energy being squeezed out of the air like water out of a wet sponge. The problem is that in a conventional compressor this heat is looked at as a problem. So also the cold produced from the expanding air which can form ice and clog up conventional air tools necessitating the addition of antifreeze to the air line.

Quote
"Water in the air is the cause of freezing at exhaust ports of (air) drills, pumps, etc., since the sudden expansion of the air on exhaust produces such a low temperature that ice is formed and the exhaust is clogged, oftentimes even in warm weather."

Compressed Air: A Reference Work on the Production, Transmission, and Application of Compressed Air; the Selection, Operation and Maintenance of Compressed-air Machinery; and the Design of Air Power Plants  - -Lucius Irving Wightman pg. 116

Both of these "problems", the super-heated compressed air and the sub-zero cold exhaust air from any kind of pneumatic engine running on the compressed air are no problem really if that extreme heat and cold are utilized to provide the necessary temperature differential to run a heat engine.

Compressed air can be used to produce extreme heat as well as extreme cold and without any need for any phase change.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: memoryman on April 18, 2015, 02:53:09 PM
very good discussion so far; however I found several wrong or incomplete statements in these posts.
For example, in the most recent one by Tom Booth: "Compressed air can be used to produce extreme heat" is backward; extreme heat can be produced by compressing air.
Will address them in a follow-up post.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on April 18, 2015, 08:54:56 PM
very good discussion so far; however I found several wrong or incomplete statements in these posts.
For example, in the most recent one by Tom Booth: "Compressed air can be used to produce extreme heat" is backward; extreme heat can be produced by compressing air.
Will address them in a follow-up post.

I agree, in that I miss-stated. More properly IMO compressing air releases the heat already in the air. Again IMO the mechanical or electrical energy used to compress the air is not lost as heat. Air is elastic, like a spring. When you compress a spring it also releases heat but the energy used to do the compressing is stored as potential energy to be released when the spring is loosed from confinement, at which point the spring gets colder to some degree. In practice this release of heat from a compressed spring is not really noticeable as it is lost to the surroundings immediately. Air is much more elastic and the heat released is more noticeable but I think that the principle is the same.

IMO the heat released by compressing air is not, at least not all, due to the energy input being converted to heat. Some of that energy input, if not all of it, is stored as potential energy. The heat released by compression is, I think, MOSTLY the airs own INTERNAL energy. There is still MORE internal energy to be had when the air is allowed to re-expand, at which point it gets very cold - far below ambient. I think the fact that the air will of itself re-expand to its original volume when allowed to and that it gets very cold in the process is proof that it's own internal energy was lost during compression rather than the energy used to compress it being converted into heat.

I suppose heat is heat and making a distinction between the heat of compression, due to conversion of the energy input into heat and the air's own pre-existing internal heat (Atmospheric heat of the air having been heated up by the sun) is just a matter of how you look at it, But IMO it is more correct, or more in accordance with reality to say that the majority of the heat released by compressing air is SOLAR ENERGY that was stored in the air while the effort put into compressing the air is actually stored as potential energy as in any elastic substance or spring.

This heat recovery site claims that it is possible to reclaim up to 105% of the electrical input energy used to compress air:

http://www.atlascopco.com/useyourenergytwiceus/useenergytwice/useyourenergytwice/

Quote
The unique design of the cooling system of the ZR oil-free screw compressor with energy recovery allows to fully capture all this heat from the compressed air and oil system.
As a result, the total energy recovered as hot water amounts up to 80-105% of the electrical input energy, depending on the site conditions. (emphasis added)

They provide their own explanation for how this is possible.

But let us not forget that AFTER all this heat energy released during compression is recovered there is still the compressed air itself to be used as a power source to run pneumatic devices, air tools etc.

First of all, I'd have to say that it is impossible to reclaim 105% of the electrical input as heat. The additional 5% has to come from somewhere else, but there is also additional potential energy in the compressed air now stored in an air tank ready to do work. That is extra energy unaccounted for. It has to be coming from somewhere.

Or should we just suppose that 105% figure is some sort of misprint or exaggerated claim?

They claim: "Through the compression process, part of the energy is lost as radiation. Atlas Copco’s Energy Recovery unit is able to extract an amount of energy from compressed air that is equivalent to the amount of energy that the electric motor uses
The most common uses for the recovered energy include process heating, space heating and water heating. "

http://www.atlascopco.us/usus/service/k/stationarycompressors/050%20save-energy/3558502/

Quote
The testing process involved the real-time measurement of the electrical input power and the output power as hot water. It was proven that... 100% of the electrical input power could be recovered in the form of hot water.

http://www.atlascopco.com/microsites/images/use%20your%20energy%20twice_tcm758-1324420.pdf

Again, if 100% (or more) of the heat generated from compressing air is recoverable in actual practice under certain conditions, there is still the potential energy latent in the compressed air itself ready to do work. How is this accounted for?

is the claim that you can "use your energy twice" just poppycock?

An LTD type Stirling Engine can use very low grade heat. I really do believe that with the right design it could be demonstrated that a Stirling combined heat-engine/compressor could extract enough heat (and cold) from compressed air to run itself with additional power to spare.

Probably not without some precision engineering though. The testing I've been able to do with very crude tin-can devices shows some promise I think, but...

I suppose like most people, if I had the money to invest in such a project I wouldn't be interested in "Free Energy" in the first place.

"The best thing a man can do for his culture when he is rich is to endeavor to carry out those schemes which he entertained when he was poor" - Thoreau
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: memoryman on April 18, 2015, 10:54:28 PM
Tom, compressing gas partially converts energy from the compression process to heat; similarly to friction losses. If the compressed gas is in a perfectly insulated container, than no (heat)energy is wasted or lost.


Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: DaS Energy on April 19, 2015, 01:31:11 AM
Question?  The engine fuel source being compressed air, where does the energy come from to compress the air?
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: memoryman on April 19, 2015, 02:04:59 AM
Question?  The engine fuel source being compressed air, where does the energy come from to compress the air?
Whatever drives the compressor (for example a standard shop air compressor) supplies the energy, usually in mechanical form (electric motor for example).
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on April 19, 2015, 02:51:08 AM
Tom, compressing gas partially converts energy from the compression process to heat;

I agree, but I don't believe that that is all that happens. That is, not all the heat comes from the energy of the compression process, (work done on the gas). At least some of the heat released is due to the gas being restricted in a smaller space so it gives up some of its internal kinetic energy (heat).

That is just my opinion I suppose but the conclusion seems unavoidable to me.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on April 19, 2015, 03:09:11 AM
Question?  The engine fuel source being compressed air, where does the energy come from to compress the air?

If you are referring to Tesla's "Self Acting"engine, the energy to run the engine is derived from ambient heat or indirect Solar Energy.

The fuel source is not compressed air (not the pressure of compressed air) as such but the heat driven off by compressing the air. The fuel is the heat.

But primarily the cold produced by throwing heat away is what creates the temperature difference to run the engine. It is a kind of heat engine. The "fuel" is heat, ambient heat, not compressed air. Compressing the air is just a means of establishing a temperature differential.

You might say then that the fuel is not heat so much as the cold produced by removing the heat which gives the freely available ambient heat something to flow into. once established the engine intercepts that flow.

I look at it more or less like a kind of siphoning action. In this case Heat is being siphoned out of the air not by a heat sink but by converting the heat into electricity which leaves a "cold hole" for more heat to flow into.



Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on April 19, 2015, 03:34:54 AM
In other words, the whole idea is to first establish a "cold hole" for the ambient heat to flow into. As Tesla wrote:

Quote
"Could we produce artificially such a "sink" for the energy of the ambient medium to flow in? ... can we produce cold in a given portion of the space and cause the heat to flow in continually?"

Once a flow is established a heat engine can be used to intercept it. Tesla reasoned that since the heat engine converts heat into another form of energy, such as electricity "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." So the excess unconverted heat needs to be dumped somewhere. The ideal place to dump it as far as possible is back into the heat engine thus: "What is not converted in flowing down can just be raised up with its own energy, and what is converted is clear gain."
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on April 19, 2015, 03:47:55 AM
Tesla was talking in principle. He was a bit vague as to exactly how all this is to be accomplished. For example he states: "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."

"By some means or other" is not very specific, but IMO Tesla is clearly talking about a heat engine here. A Stirling Engine fits the bill. "little energy" (cold) on one side "the ordinary ambient medium with much energy" relatively hot on the other side. "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" This describes exactly the function of a Stirling type Heat Engine.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on April 20, 2015, 09:40:09 AM
Another attempt at a concept drawing:

Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on April 20, 2015, 10:16:33 AM
If there is any chance of something of this sort working at all, it would, of course, require some sort of auxiliary starting mechanism to run the compressor until a temperature differential is established.

Also, it should be noted that in this illustration ALL the heat and cold generated in the air-cycle system is used to run the Stirling engine - which in turn, will take over running the compressor. Power output (if any) would come from the re-expanding of the air through the turbine which would turn an electrical generator.

The job of the whole air-cycle system is mainly to produce COLD. Extreme Cold. The colder the better. That low grade ambient heat is turned into high grade heat in the process is almost incidental.

I think this is in harmony with the principles Tesla outlined, though I'm not sure it is exactly what he had in mind. In a way it is a reversal of what he described in that he talks about removing the excess heat from the "cold hole". Here the heat is removed by flushing out the "cold Hole" with the cold air expanded through the turbine.

As I said, Tesla was talking in the abstract. This is my own idea how it could be done, based on what I know about air-cycle heat-pumps, Stirling engines, compressed air... etc.

It may seem that it is counterproductive to cool the compressed air before it is expanded through the turbine. The idea there is to cool the expanding air as much as possible. That expanding the air through a turbine reduces the temperature dramatically (much more than throttling alone) because energy is being removed, is almost incidental. The main purpose of expanding the air through a turbine is to cool it. not power production, but as power production is a necessary byproduct of an air-cycle cooling system, it is there for the taking.

The idea here is simply to have something working. A "Self-Acting" engine. To start with... with some power output at least.

if that much can be accomplished, then it can be modified to maximize power output later.

But IMO, even if we just end up with something that sits and runs on a coffee table as a conversation piece that would be a marvel.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: memoryman on April 20, 2015, 05:02:42 PM
Tom, a very interesting topic. At the moment i am dealing with some serious personal matter, and have little time to spend on posting. Find a video wit Daniel Sheehan on 'challenges to the second law of thermodynamics'; give me you thoughts on that.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on April 21, 2015, 08:25:59 AM
Tom, a very interesting topic. At the moment i am dealing with some serious personal matter, and have little time to spend on posting. Find a video wit Daniel Sheehan on 'challenges to the second law of thermodynamics'; give me you thoughts on that.

Certainly Tesla was well aware of the second law and was going head to head with it in his discussion regarding his "Self Acting Engine". He wrote:

Quote
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...

He then goes on to describe various possible loopholes so-to-speak in this second law. Primarily this idea of creating an artificial heat sink for the ambient heat to flow into so that energy could be extracted from that flow. Perhaps there was some flaw in his logic but I am not aware that his idea has ever been tested in any practical way, by building some such engine as he proposed. Personally I think he was right and I think it would be worth the investment to build such a device and see what happens.

Beyond that I've been round and round about the second law on various forums. To me it seems quite like an article of faith for some and quite slippery when it comes to definitions. Just for example, If a Heat Pump has a COP > 1 is that because the second law doesn't apply because it is an "open system" or what ? What constitutes an "open system" anyway ?

The little "Drinking Bird" appears to violate the second law. But we can get around that by redefining what is or isn't an open system.

In my mind the bird is simply a heat engine extracting energy from the ambient air and using some of that energy to drive it's own simple refrigeration system. My argument is simply that a drop of water on a toy birds felt beak is not much of a "cold hole" and that the same principle could be used to drive a larger more practical heat engine with a more effective cooling system and from which some real usable energy could be derived, violation of the second law or not.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: memoryman on April 21, 2015, 06:34:12 PM
here is the video I was referring to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBp_SPJAOJc
Note that he is collecting charge - not heat.
A heat pump TRANSFERS heat; it does not generate it. Energy has to be supplied for the transfer. That transferred heat is available to do work.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: lightend on June 27, 2016, 10:32:40 PM
Got to page 2. Thought I would just chip in. will keep reading but wanted to suggest a couple of things.
Ambient temps drop at night.
this sterling type motor heats up the cold box.

(see awesome art work attached)
If we can do it with just a couple of degrees, how about this?
Why not have the 'cold box' cold during the day, as the box warms up due to heat being exchanged it will become ambient, around this time the sun goes down and the outside air plummets, now the box hows the heat and exchanges with the cooler outside temperature, running the thing in reverse.


second thought, is its just a couple of degrees,
why not have the hot sink in ambient temps but have a cold sink underground spread about in the soil where it can dissipate any heat fairly easily.

sorry if I jumped the gun here, just intrigued by this and the prospect of possibly using low heat nitinol.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: dieter on June 27, 2016, 10:55:38 PM
The drinking bird is actually a good example for a demonstrated 2nd law breakdown.

Open system or not, is splitting hairs.

Tesla mentioned a similar idea, in which a liquid substance with a boiling point at ambient temperature is used, instead of water as in a steam engine. Wether boiling or just expanding, like eg. carbo-hydroxides such as eg. gasoline, which are performing high volume chanches under small temperature diffrences. It certainly is possible to convert thermal environment energy into mechanical force. Cooling can always be achieved by evaporation. And where there is cooling, there's a temperature diffrence and hence an opportunity for a heat engine.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: pomodoro on June 29, 2016, 02:27:43 AM
The drinking bird is actually a good example for a demonstrated 2nd law breakdown.

Unfortunately , it may look like it is but isn't actually braking the 2nd law at all. The increase in entropy from the water going into vapor is enough to offset the heat required from the system, so the water cools down. Pretty funky still.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: dieter on June 29, 2016, 04:12:31 AM
I consider the atmosphere with the energy of the sun as a closed system in equilibrium.

See water evaporation as the same as microscopic turbulences, such as brownian motion.

And in Maxwells demon, brownian motion is allowed. At least as long as it cannot / does not have to think ^^

Ok, maybe you say  now then combustion of fuel would be the same. Maybe it is, for me the only point is: it must be clean and freely available.

But ok, I probably miss the point here.
Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: pomodoro on June 29, 2016, 08:30:05 AM


See water evaporation as the same as microscopic turbulences, such as brownian motion.

This may not be correct, because if the humidity is enough, there will be no overall evaporation of the water, but brownian motion is still there. For the bird to work, there must be no equilibrium regarding the evaporation of water, only then will there be an increase in entropy ,as the liquid water turns to vapor,  to drive the evaporation, and thus  cool down the water.
Thankfully, great areas of non equilibrium exist in the world.


Ok, maybe you say  now then combustion of fuel would be the same. Maybe it is, for me the only point is: it must be clean and freely available.

Remember that an increase in entropy is all the second law is about.

A vapor doesn't want to become a liquid again , because it has less disorder when it is  a liquid and therefore less entropy,  but at cold temperatures, the heat released by condensation, is turned into entropy of the surroundings ( the molecules or air around the water molecules) and  can overcome the loss in entropy of the system (the water) and steam turns back into water in the clouds . The overall entropy still increases! It is all described by the Gibbs equation as mentioned in a previous post.  In a nutshell BOTH  the evaporation and then condensation of water at a different temperature , humidity etc, is allowed. No work is needed, a change in temperature does the job.

In a different way, combustion of fuel creates more entropy, so the second law again allows it.  But to make the fuel,  the sun's energy was used by plants to trap carbon dioxide into solid lignin. The entropy again decrease, but this time, work was done by the plant and sun to go against the second law. The 'condensation' of CO2 into lignin is not allowed , ever, by the second law, there is no heat released, as in the condensation of water, so work was needed to do this.


Title: Re: Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?
Post by: Tom Booth on August 18, 2016, 08:06:46 AM
I'm going to be working on building a prototype "Ambient Heat Engine" as best I'm able. If anyone would like to follow the progress or assist I have a funding page with updates here:

https://www.gofundme.com/2fsahck