Please refute my perpetual motion machine
nightbat
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
>
> "MikeC" <cove...@yathisshouldntbeherehoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:8ycC9.1538$H4....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Cut<
> >
> > BTW The use of external energy is not allowed in PPMs. This includes
> > sunshine else all PPMs would run off solar cells.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> Yes; all PPMs must have a way of alternately expanding something to do work;
> a heat sink, and then a way of letting it cool; a cooler heat sink to which
> some of the heat can dissapate. All reciprocating engines operate on this
> principle:
>
> Using sunshine, moonshine or starshine could certainly make a long running
> machine: The right builder could possibly make one that will do a lot of
> work; which is really the ultimate test for a perpetual motion machine.
nightbat
Tesla did it a long time ago, but took the secret with him. Some
thing to do with funneling constant cosmic rays through certain
crystals, vacuum tubes (12-14 of them ), high voltage coil, stepped up
transformer, condensers, resistors, circuit board, 12 volt car
batteries, electric motor, antenna, metal sinks. Said the car would run
day or night not just pre solar power like the moon buggy and actually
did it. Got mad when the newspapers laughed it off as pure nonsense.
Took the black box back to New York City where he originally built it.
This from the guy who invented wireless radio and said he made contact
with extraterrestrials who supposedly told him everything. There must
have been something to it, the Nazi's wanted his nuclear weapons and
laser info he had tested in isolated northern Russia bad, but he never
sold out. Some of his technology is still classified top secret. He was
the first to invent wireless everything including tv and vcr but the
human transporter machine concept he had is the one I liked the best. He
spent the last days in a New York hotel room that got raided for his
info just hours after his death. My father worked with Tesla's
discoveries all his life and said he was a pure genius. Tesla wondered
why people thought him strange but still loved all the far advanced
invention info he got from ET via his special radio. Strangely, a form
of his florescent lighting I understand was found in the pyramids of
Egypt. He was told by ET our planet would heat up and eventually lose
its life supportable atmosphere to heat engines 100 years ago. The ozone
hole wasn't discovered until after his death.
My hopes are that the remarkable TJ liquid piston technology will help
reduce the toxic emissions of present total petrol based engines. But
try explaining 500+ mpg engines even to 21st century humans. A
technology that may just possibly lead to long distant practical star
ship propulsion.
the nightbat
Graham Rounce
news:3DD9D9A8...@home.ffni.com...
> He spent the last days in a New York hotel room that got
> raided for his info just hours after his death.
Death?? Obviously he didn't die. He's living in Atlantis with unicorns and
ETs.
Boris Mohar
wrote:
> Tesla did it a long time ago, but took the secret with him. Some
>thing to do with funneling constant cosmic rays through certain
>crystals, vacuum tubes (12-14 of them ), high voltage coil, stepped up
>transformer, condensers, resistors, circuit board, 12 volt car
>batteries, electric motor, antenna, metal sinks. Said the car would run
>day or night not just pre solar power like the moon buggy and actually
>did it. Got mad when the newspapers laughed it off as pure nonsense.
He WENT mad.
>Took the black box back to New York City where he originally built it.
>This from the guy who invented wireless radio and said he made contact
>with extraterrestrials who supposedly told him everything. There must
>have been something to it, the Nazi's wanted his nuclear weapons and
>laser info he had tested in isolated northern Russia bad, but he never
>sold out. Some of his technology is still classified top secret. He was
Extraterrestrials, Nazis, laser, Russia, top secret ..hmmm....
>My hopes are that the remarkable TJ liquid piston technology will help
TJ is crazy. You need a clue. Maybe some formal education but I warn you
that you might end up agreeing with me.
Robert Kolker
nightbat wrote:
> My hopes are that the remarkable TJ liquid piston technology will help
> reduce the toxic emissions of present total petrol based engines. But
> try explaining 500+ mpg engines even to 21st century humans. A
> technology that may just possibly lead to long distant practical star
> ship propulsion.
Not a chance. The second law of thermodynamics is still intact, and it
is unlikely that humans will ever get a space vessel much faster than
c/10 which puts Proximi Centuri 40 years away. We are not going to the
Stars any time soon, if ever.
Tesla was a bit of a showboat and he would not be above making a phoney
perpetual motion machine. As it was, he was nutsy fagin trying to
broadcast electrical energy through the air. If he had stuck with his
best two inventions, the A.C. mogen and F.M radio he would have died a
rich Wizard.
Yer a Wizard, Nicola ---- Robby Coltrane of Harry Potter Fame.
Bob Kolker
Bob Kolker
>
>
> the nightbat
Tom Clarke
> Tesla was a bit of a showboat and he would not be above making a phoney
> perpetual motion machine. As it was, he was nutsy fagin trying to
> broadcast electrical energy through the air. If he had stuck with his
> best two inventions, the A.C. mogen and F.M radio he would have died a
> rich Wizard.
Wasn't it Edwin Armstrong who invented FM Radio?
Tom Clarke
Hatunen
wrote:
>
>
>nightbat wrote:
>> My hopes are that the remarkable TJ liquid piston technology will help
>> reduce the toxic emissions of present total petrol based engines. But
>> try explaining 500+ mpg engines even to 21st century humans. A
>> technology that may just possibly lead to long distant practical star
>> ship propulsion.
>
>Not a chance. The second law of thermodynamics is still intact, and it
>is unlikely that humans will ever get a space vessel much faster than
>c/10 which puts Proximi Centuri 40 years away. We are not going to the
>Stars any time soon, if ever.
>
>Tesla was a bit of a showboat and he would not be above making a phoney
>perpetual motion machine. As it was, he was nutsy fagin trying to
>broadcast electrical energy through the air.
It actually works, though. After all, that's exactly what your nearby
radio or television station does.
Basically, his idea was to put up a large, no, huge, transmitter at
some point and then choose a wavelength that would result in standing
waves all over the globe of the earth. Just stick up an antenna a;most
anywhere and pull down some power. In theory it works, but how do you
meter the energy drawn by users?
************ DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) ***********
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******
Gregory L. Hansen
Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 18:53:41 GMT, Robert Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>nightbat wrote:
>>> My hopes are that the remarkable TJ liquid piston technology will help
>>> reduce the toxic emissions of present total petrol based engines. But
>>> try explaining 500+ mpg engines even to 21st century humans. A
>>> technology that may just possibly lead to long distant practical star
>>> ship propulsion.
>>
>>Not a chance. The second law of thermodynamics is still intact, and it
>>is unlikely that humans will ever get a space vessel much faster than
>>c/10 which puts Proximi Centuri 40 years away. We are not going to the
>>Stars any time soon, if ever.
>>
>>Tesla was a bit of a showboat and he would not be above making a phoney
>>perpetual motion machine. As it was, he was nutsy fagin trying to
>>broadcast electrical energy through the air.
>
>It actually works, though. After all, that's exactly what your nearby
>radio or television station does.
>
>Basically, his idea was to put up a large, no, huge, transmitter at
>some point and then choose a wavelength that would result in standing
>waves all over the globe of the earth. Just stick up an antenna a;most
>anywhere and pull down some power. In theory it works, but how do you
>meter the energy drawn by users?
And what legal recourse do you have when a tree or a lake doesn't pony up
for the bill?
--
"A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree
with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance
our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.
Robert Kolker
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>>It actually works, though. After all, that's exactly what your nearby
>>radio or television station does.
The losses are substantial. That is why receiving devices have
amplifiers. No one has broadcast useable amounts of energy (the kind
that can turn wheels, for example) through the air over any considerable
distance. All attempts to do so have wasted energy by dissipation.
Build for us an over the air power generator that can generate 30 hp at
the point of reception without the use of an amplifier. That would go a
long way to supporting your fantastical claims.
Now Tesla broadcast sufficient energy to communicate, and if he were a
sane and sensible person he would have stepped up and claimed the mantle
of "father of radio broadcasting". But he did not, and Marconi get the
title for producing an inferior mode of broadcast. The best he could do
was transmit the buzzes from sparks.
"Yer a Wizard, Nikola!" -- Robby Coltrane of Harry Potter fame.
Bob Kolker
Gregory L. Hansen
Robert Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>
>Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>>>It actually works, though. After all, that's exactly what your nearby
>>>radio or television station does.
hatu...@cox.net wrote that part, actually.
Hatunen
wrote:
>
>
>Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>>>It actually works, though. After all, that's exactly what your nearby
>>>radio or television station does.
>
>The losses are substantial.
Yep.
>That is why receiving devices have
>amplifiers. No one has broadcast useable amounts of energy (the kind
>that can turn wheels, for example) through the air over any considerable
>distance. All attempts to do so have wasted energy by dissipation.
In a sort of idealized theory there are no losses with standing waves,
although the frequency had to be low enough to travel around the earth
without the intervention of the Heaviside layer. Because the wave
literally would circle the earth, arriving back at the generating
antenna the situation for a standing wave is created. I'm not sure
what losses intervening structures or earthly configuration would
introduce. This is left as an exercise for the reader.
>Build for us an over the air power generator that can generate 30 hp at
>the point of reception without the use of an amplifier. That would go a
>long way to supporting your fantastical claims.
It's not my claim, it was Tesla's. In fact, though, energy IS
transmitted by broadcasting stations (or any other radiowave station)
and is received by receivers. Are you seriously disputing that?
For Tesla the critical factor was creating the standing wave. In
theory, this is possible, although the theory does require a lossless,
or very low loss, path around the earth. I beleive this is not far
from facts for waves at the long wavelengths proposed.
I do hope, though, you don't think I'm arguing for the practicality of
such an absurd scheme. Tesla did build a transmitting station to test
this, though. There are apocryphal stories about what happened when he
fired the station up.
>Now Tesla broadcast sufficient energy to communicate, and if he were a
>sane and sensible person he would have stepped up and claimed the mantle
>of "father of radio broadcasting". But he did not, and Marconi get the
>title for producing an inferior mode of broadcast. The best he could do
>was transmit the buzzes from sparks.
Spark transmitters were the backbone of communications for well over a
decade; inferior or no it's pretty much all that could be done at the
time. It's why radio operators were traditionally called "Sparks".
-.. . . -..- .-- ---.. .-.. -... ..-
GD
"Hatunen" <hatu...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3ddabbc0...@news.west.cox.net...
>
> For Tesla the critical factor was creating the standing wave. In
> theory, this is possible, although the theory does require a lossless,
> or very low loss, path around the earth. I beleive this is not far
> from facts for waves at the long wavelengths proposed.
Such a scheme does exist at a few Hz IIRC. It is maintained by
thunderstorms worldwide, no need for a transmitter.
nightbat
Robert Kolker wrote:
>
> Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
> >>It actually works, though. After all, that's exactly what your nearby
> >>radio or television station does.
>
> The losses are substantial. That is why receiving devices have
> amplifiers. No one has broadcast useable amounts of energy (the kind
> that can turn wheels, for example) through the air over any considerable
> distance. All attempts to do so have wasted energy by dissipation.
>
> Build for us an over the air power generator that can generate 30 hp at
> the point of reception without the use of an amplifier. That would go a
> long way to supporting your fantastical claims.
>
> Now Tesla broadcast sufficient energy to communicate, and if he were a
> sane and sensible person he would have stepped up and claimed the mantle
> of "father of radio broadcasting". But he did not, and Marconi get the
> title for producing an inferior mode of broadcast. The best he could do
> was transmit the buzzes from sparks.
>
> "Yer a Wizard, Nikola!" -- Robby Coltrane of Harry Potter fame.
>
> Bob Kolker
nightbat
Correction Bob, Tesla did step up and publicly stated he was in
radio contact with other advanced civilizations in the cosmos while
Marconi was learning to just crawl using Tesla's own patented
inventions. Wake up! He is the father of all wireless signal long
distance broadcasting including proven transmitted wireless electrical
power. Losses from generation, don't make us laugh, the man who counted
every pea and diced carrot on his plate. He still holds the record for
the largest man made lightning bolts and never lost or did a laboratory
helper ever get hurt producing and showing the way to the highest AC
power generation. You have something against amplification or step up
repeater that Tesla also perfected for the telegraph and telephone
companies? He was one of the most sane and sensible men that has ever
existed, where is your temporary loss of historical and science
perspective? Established commercial profiteers have never honored or
helped those who might take away from their controlled markets. When DC
established Edison was told by brilliant university taught employee
Tesla, normal AC generation and Tesla's newly invented AC motors and
generators were far better, he fired Tesla without paying him. Lucky for
us Westinghouse hired him, for the rest is history. Why, because back
then, in any established case the true inventor of any invention got the
credit and rights no matter what. Unlike the present day corporate,
university, or government present requirement that the inventor sign and
turn over all rights to any invention discovered in return for any
research funds or facilities provided. In Tesla's case, he used his own
time, money, and residence to develop his AC motor technology but Edison
and his forces still refused to pay him and tried blocking or
discrediting him any way they could.
the nightbat
Robert Kolker
nightbat wrote:
>
> Correction Bob, Tesla did step up and publicly stated he was in
> radio contact with other advanced civilizations in the cosmos while
Proving that poor Nikola was nutsy fagin. No wonder few took him seriously.
Many of us talk to aliens, but when the aliens talk back it is time to
check into the nearest mental facility.
Bob Kolker
nightbat
nightbat
Ha ha, I'm normally with you Bob, because yes, you are always
generally correct, but we're talking and referencing about Tesla. The
guy who made possible the ability to talk into a wireless phone to folks
thousands of miles away through air in a planned network via tower
repeaters and a compact do hickey thing the size of a pack of cigarettes
and getting even smaller. Fantastic, outrageous, impossible, and what
now, video games, video paging, instant market quotes, wireless voice
recognition, all in the same midget thing. What physics you may ask,
madness, pure and simple madness. Or wait, admitted to having talked to
distant cosmos aliens Tesla, that paved the way and made it all
possible.
the nightbat
Robert Kolker
nightbat wrote:
> Ha ha, I'm normally with you Bob, because yes, you are always
> generally correct, but we're talking and referencing about Tesla. The
> guy who made possible the ability to talk into a wireless phone to folks
> thousands of miles away through air in a planned network via tower
> repeaters and a compact do hickey thing the size of a pack of cigarettes
> and getting even smaller. Fantastic, outrageous, impossible, and what
> now, video games, video paging, instant market quotes, wireless voice
> recognition, all in the same midget thing. What physics you may ask,
> madness, pure and simple madness. Or wait, admitted to having talked to
> distant cosmos aliens Tesla, that paved the way and made it all
> possible.
Yes, but his schemes to broadcast power sufficient to turn wheels
failed. He should have stuck to A.C. mogens and communications. Tesla
was a very smart inventor and he also was half mad and three quarters
deranged. Most scientists wear white lab coats or a suit and tie. Tesla
went around in a wizard's hat with stars and moons on it.
"Yer a Wizard, Nikola" --- Hadgrid of Hogwarts.
Bob Kolker
Chris Torek
Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> writes:
>I do hope, though, you don't think I'm arguing for the practicality of
>such an absurd scheme. Tesla did build a transmitting station to test
>this, though. There are apocryphal stories about what happened when he
>fired the station up.
Are they really "apocryphal"? Supposedly he burned out the
wiring in the generators supplying his Colorado Springs lab.
Seems like this should be verifiable, provided the generating
company kept records.
(Tesla *was* a genius, and also a nut. :-) )
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems (BSD engineering)
Salt Lake City, UT, USA Domain: to...@bsdi.com
http://67.40.109.61/torek/ (for the moment)
(you probably cannot email me -- spam has effectively killed email)
nightbat
Robert Kolker wrote:
> Yes, but his schemes to broadcast power sufficient to turn wheels
> failed. He should have stuck to A.C. mogens and communications. Tesla
> was a very smart inventor and he also was half mad and three quarters
> deranged. Most scientists wear white lab coats or a suit and tie. Tesla
> went around in a wizard's hat with stars and moons on it.
>
> "Yer a Wizard, Nikola" --- Hadgrid of Hogwarts.
>
> Bob Kolker
nightbat
From what I was told Bob, he was a regular guy but a
perfectionist with a perfect memory and genius of mind. And talking
about hats he hated them because he thought they were good breeding
grounds for germs which he loathed and from which a lot of his strange
habits arose from. In true, he actually had wireless electric power
transmission technology and performed a public demonstration of it in
New York. He Patented the process but as mentioned in his autobiography,
he himself wondered why the electrical companies all chose to stay with
the old customary known electrical wire transmission process instead of
his proven wireless one. Very much for the same reason he wondered why
would they chose to advocate and stay with Edison's hot resistive based
expensive incandescent lighting when they could easily use his filament
less, cool, low cost, AC electric operating florescent lighting
technology. Having read his AC method of electrical power transmission
Patents, he does clearly show both methods. This no doubt ascertained
from his florescent lighting non filament investigations and knowledge
acquired while employed at the Edison research factory.
the nightbat
Hatunen
wrote:
>In article <3ddabbc0...@news.west.cox.net>
>Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> writes:
>>I do hope, though, you don't think I'm arguing for the practicality of
>>such an absurd scheme. Tesla did build a transmitting station to test
>>this, though. There are apocryphal stories about what happened when he
>>fired the station up.
>
>Are they really "apocryphal"? Supposedly he burned out the
>wiring in the generators supplying his Colorado Springs lab.
>Seems like this should be verifiable, provided the generating
>company kept records.
"Apocryphal" means "Of questionable authorship or authenticity". Same
thing as your "supposedly".
I doubt if there are any records, but one never knows.
Chris Torek
>>Are they really "apocryphal"? Supposedly he burned out the
>>wiring in the generators supplying his Colorado Springs lab.
>>Seems like this should be verifiable, provided the generating
>>company kept records.
In article <3ddb0d4f...@news.west.cox.net>
Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> writes:
>"Apocryphal" means "Of questionable authorship or authenticity". Same
>thing as your "supposedly".
>
>I doubt if there are any records, but one never knows.
But that was my point: there are elements that have some method by
which they can be verified. Anyone who cares sufficiently should
be able to pursue these. If they lead to a dead end (e.g., "the
company HQ burned in 1982 and the records were destroyed"), *then*
the stories become "apocryphal" in its best meaning. Until then,
the word "supposed" or "allegedly" is probably more appropriate.
(Or, to put it more succinctly, the connotations of "supposed" and
"apocryphal" are different. ... And yes, but sorry, I *am* a
logophile, enamored of didacticism, and prone to pleonasm. :-) )
Richard Herring
<nigh...@home.ffni.com> writes
[Tesla]
>. Some of his technology is still classified top secret.
How would you know?
--
Richard Herring
nightbat
nightbat
As previously posted Richard, close technical family association
and parental lineage with high security clearance has it privileges.
However, a simple in depth search of the net on Tesla might clue you in.
the nightbat
Richard Herring
<nigh...@home.ffni.com> writes
>nightbat wrote
>
>Richard Herring wrote:
>>
>> In message <3DD9D9A8...@home.ffni.com>, nightbat
>> <nigh...@home.ffni.com> writes
>>
>> [Tesla]
>>
>> >. Some of his technology is still classified top secret.
>>
>> How would you know?
>>
>and parental lineage with high security clearance has it privileges.
Pull the other one. Those who have such clearance don't brag about it.
(Not more than once, anyway.)
>However, a simple in depth search of the net on Tesla might clue you in.
Unlikely. Any evidence supporting your claim would in itself be a
security breach.
On the other hand, crank sites reverencing T*sla are Out There in
abundance.
--
Richard Herring
nightbat
nightbat
Not to publicly show disrespect for your lack of apparent Tesla
knowledge, much can be learned from the net with careful study. But
anyone with high security knowledge is priviledged, and what makes you
think some of that knowledge is not relayed from privileged Father to
son indirectly? You don't think the honorable Bush family is close
though guarded or any other close loving family? Since when is
scientific discussion or presentation of public facts labeled by you as
bragging? Subject posts of interest with references is not bragging,
it's too hard getting to the bottom of things to spend it in further
frivolities or non pertinent uncertainties. Tesla's Patents are in the
public domain as well as information by many public books written about
his life and acomplishments, articles by close friends, relatives, or
working associates and newspapers accounts with the exception of some
news articles that were burned due to a central newspaper storage
facility fire. Crank sites or gossip are as common as trolls, don't
confuse a man's brilliant acomplishments with same. And those things
deemed vital or important to National security of a Government remain
top secret which is a well known fact. Claim, what claim, any sensitive
scientist's work especially of the caliber of Tesla's would be
considered classified until chosen to be declassified by respective
Government. Anything discussed or referenced in my posts can be found in
his public US Government released Patents, his autobiography, his own
written works, and subsequent personal papers made public and 1st hand
account public newspaper articles. If you have issues, do some research
and try separating the actual man from the hype and myths.
the nightbat
Robert Kolker
nightbat wrote:
> nightbat wrote
> nightbat
Whatever else Tesla accomplished (he invented practical A.C. mogens for
us), he did NOT find a way to violate the second law of thermodynamics.
There is really no free lunch in Nature. All useful work is bought at
the price of degrading the heat we use.
When the Kosmos runs down it will be all over and done with.
Bob Kolker
The Commentator
>
Much trollage, wankage, and loon drool deleted >
>
> the nightbat
You did not spell "Dingbat" correctly.
Richard Herring
>nightbat wrote
>
>Richard Herring wrote:
>>
>> In message <3DDB8ADE...@home.ffni.com>, nightbat
>> <nigh...@home.ffni.com> writes
>> >nightbat wrote
>> >
>> >Richard Herring wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In message <3DD9D9A8...@home.ffni.com>, nightbat
>> >> <nigh...@home.ffni.com> writes
>> >>
>> >> [Tesla]
>> >>
>> >> >. Some of his technology is still classified top secret.
>> >>
>> >> How would you know?
>> >>
>> > As previously posted Richard, close technical family association
>> >and parental lineage with high security clearance has it privileges.
>>
>> Pull the other one. Those who have such clearance don't brag about it.
>> (Not more than once, anyway.)
>>
>> >However, a simple in depth search of the net on Tesla might clue you in.
>>
>> Unlikely. Any evidence supporting your claim would in itself be a
>> security breach.
>>
>> On the other hand, crank sites reverencing T*sla are Out There in
>> abundance.
> Not to publicly show disrespect for your lack of apparent Tesla
>knowledge,
And maybe I know more about Tesla than you think. One has to be able to
separate truth from nonsense in a field where so many kooks abound.
>much can be learned from the net with careful study. But
>anyone with high security knowledge is priviledged, and what makes you
>think some of that knowledge is not relayed from privileged Father to
>son indirectly? You don't think the honorable Bush family is close
>though guarded or any other close loving family?
that sentence sense not make. Are you claiming descent from the Bush
family?
>Since when is
>scientific discussion or presentation of public facts labeled by you as
>bragging?
Why don't you read what I said, which was not about discussion of public
facts? Publicly claiming to know top secret information is bragging and
(if true) a breach of security in itself..
Moreover, since the claim cannot be substantiated, it adds no weight to
your arguments, and in fact suggests you're using it as a rhetorical
device to disguise their weakness.
>Subject posts of interest with references is not bragging,
>it's too hard getting to the bottom of things to spend it in further
>frivolities or non pertinent uncertainties. Tesla's Patents are in the
>public domain as well as information by many public books written about
>his life and acomplishments, articles by close friends, relatives, or
>working associates and newspapers accounts with the exception of some
>news articles that were burned due to a central newspaper storage
>facility fire. Crank sites or gossip are as common as trolls, don't
>confuse a man's brilliant acomplishments with same. And those things
>deemed vital or important to National security of a Government remain
>top secret which is a well known fact. Claim, what claim, any sensitive
>scientist's work especially of the caliber of Tesla's would be
>considered classified until chosen to be declassified by respective
>Government.
And therefore you wouldn't know about it.
>Anything discussed or referenced in my posts can be found in
>his public US Government released Patents, his autobiography, his own
>written works, and subsequent personal papers made public and 1st hand
>account public newspaper articles. If you have issues, do some research
>and try separating the actual man from the hype and myths.
I'd recommend you do the same.
--
Richard Herring
nightbat
nightbat
Well Bob, just pondering, then what about that now premiere Guth
M multiverse theory that after this universe is done and run down the
next one will just swallow her up and start all over again? What happens
when two worlds collide, let alone two universes, any new thermal
byproducts reintroduced to the system or field? They say we are all the
elemental stuff made from the stars, and judging from how many are out
there, that's a lot of stuff to continue making more of us in another
place, time, and form, let alone all those lunches. And if that theory
is correct, and there's an older universe, and those more advanced
civilizations are thousands, millions, of years ahead of us, just
observing and knowing their fate and watching ours, wouldn't you like to
communicate and exchange info like, what are they having for lunch?
the nightbat
nightbat
Robert Kolker wrote:
>
> nightbat wrote:
>
> Whatever else Tesla accomplished (he invented practical A.C. mogens for
> us), he did NOT find a way to violate the second law of thermodynamics.
> There is really no free lunch in Nature. All useful work is bought at
> the price of degrading the heat we use.
>
> When the Kosmos runs down it will be all over and done with.
>
> Bob Kolker
nightbat
Bob, thought you might find this site interesting on Tesla.
http://www.parascope.com/en/1096/tesindex.htm
the nightbat
Boris Mohar
wrote:
>nightbat wrote
> Bob, thought you might find this site interesting on Tesla.
>
>http://www.parascope.com/en/1096/tesindex.htm
>
>
> the nightbat
You are really hung up on this Tesla guy aren't you? To you he has
attained proportions of a mystical cult figure broidering on religious
fanaticism. Get a grip on current reality so that you do not loose it
like he did. You can cope with disappointment when you are young but if
you cling onto unfounded and unproven dogma in the face reality something
is going to give.
Robert Kolker
nightbat wrote:
> nightbat
>
> Well Bob, just pondering, then what about that now premiere Guth
> M multiverse theory that after this universe is done and run down the
> next one will just swallow her up and start all over again?
What next one? Do you have evidence that the "next one" exists? If so,
publish it, if not stop the nutsy fagin foolishness.
Do not confuse your silly speculations and brain farts with science.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
nightbat wrote:
> nightbat
>
> Bob, thought you might find this site interesting on Tesla.
>
> http://www.parascope.com/en/1096/tesindex.htm
I read the piece on "free" energy. It is nonsense. There is no Free
Lunch. All useful work is bought at the price of degrading energy from a
higher temperature to a lower temperature.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is yet to be disproved in a laboratory
experiment or any observation of Nature.
"Yer a Wizard, Nikola!" --- Hagrid of Hogwarts
Bob Kolker
J. Snell
news:3E04AC45...@attbi.com:
With respect to the 2nd "law" of thermodynamics, it only applies
"internally" to "closed systems" and has absolutely no other
application.
This is not to say that it doesn't play a part in analyzing any
given energy system to determine what's going on. It all depends on
what you're drawing your system "boxes" around.
Take the case of the simple stirling engine. It works by getting in
the way of heat flow. It transfers X number of btu's from one side
to the other and doesn't destroy any of them while it does work. But,
the entropy of that heat increases upon leaving the cold side of
the engine. Enclose both the hot and cold sides in a sealed box and
it will, of course, stop running. It can't feed itself. This would
be the 2nd law properly applied.
Consider the lowly corner wooodstove. You burn the wood and produce
concentrated heat in the stove body. That heat radiates and convects
away from the stove. While the stove is at better than 500 degrees, the
local air space is a comfortable 70 degrees or so. The wood is being
burned purely for it's average btu content and not for it's usable
peak temperatures. The heat in the room has greater entropy
than the heat in the body of the stove.
A stirling engine may be mounted so that the hot side completely contains
the woodburner while the cold side radiates into the local airspace to
warm the room. It works. It's been done. The average btu output to the
room remains the same while the stirling outputs usable mechanical
power as a side effect. Is this "free energy"? Nope. But, to the guy
who owns the woodstove it's a real bonus. This is the basic idea behind
any cogen system.
Let's also consider the lowly heat-pump. It's efficiency is always less
than 100%. But, it's coefficient of performance is almost always better
than 3:1. Allow me to clarify.
The total output of a heatpump is the sum of the electrical input and the
heat input minus any electromechanical losses in the system.
The user (you or me) only provides the electrical input to drive the pump.
The heat comes from the local environment of the evaporator core.
1 unit of electrical input will cause a bare minimum of 3 equivalent heat
units to be collected at the evaporator and concentrated for heat output
at the condenser at a higher temperature.
1 unit of user energy equals a minimum of 3 usable units of heat for the
user. The environment provided the extra energy.
Is this "free energy"? Well, consider where your box is drawn. Against the
whole local environment, no, it's not. A total of 4 units of energy went in
and only 3 came out. This shows a loss. The universe slows, everything gets
old and dies. Whatever.
But, from the user's perspective (the only one that counts on a cold
winter's night), you can bet your bottom dollar that those two extra heat
units were free!
Even simpler, wind, water, and solar power are all "free energy" from the
users perspective even though they really aren't when one takes all the
universal energy flows into account. User's point of view is, again, the
only one that counts in a truly practical, everyday sense.
Now, back to Tesla. He didn't violate any physical laws. He didn't have to.
Backing up from our somewhat myopic vantage point will give us a larger
picture of what Tesla was up to. None of his devices "created" energy. But,
there was nothing stopping him from extracting energy from sources that
already had a steady flow much like the wind, or water, or the sun.
Here's a quote from his autobiography that deserves a look.
"Ever since that time the magnification of feeble actions fascinated me,
and when, years later, I took up the experimental study of mechanical and
electrical resonance, I was keenly interested from the very start.
Possibly, had it not been for that early powerful impression I might not
have followed up the little spark I obtained with my coil and never
developed my best invention, the true history of which I will tell."
First clue: "magnification of feeble actions"
"Distance is then ABSOLUTELY ELIMINATED, THERE BEING NO DIMINUATION IN THE
INTENSITY of the transmitted impulses. It is even possible to make the
actions increase with the distance from the plane, according to an exact
mathematical law. This invention was one of a number comprised in my "World
System" of wireless transmission which I undertook to commercialise on my
return to New York in 1900."
Second clue: "actions increase with the distance from the plane,..."
First, he wasn't using A.C. since he gave up on that around 1890 and began
using unidirectional impulses to drive his coils. Strange effects are
produced that are more electrostatic in behavior than anything else. Notice
that that last paragraph first indicates that he had completely overcome
the "line loss" problem of increasing distance betweeen source and load.
He then expands on that idea stating that the system actually shows an
"action increase" with distance. That would indicate that his mode of
energy transmission was somehow gathering environmental energy as the
wavefront travelled out from the source transmitter. Larger quantities
of energy could be drawn at the receiver locations than what was
transmitted from the source generator.
This is a theoretically sound principle. Parallel concepts can be seen in
other areas that support the possibility. The heat-pump is only one
example. A simple magnifying glass can passively collect solar photons and
redirect them so that they converge on a single point to produce high
temperature (lower entropy) heat. It does this by simply sitting in the
path of the photon streams that are already present. Free energy? It is to
you and me, even if the universe, as a whole, shows that it's really not.
Without digging around in quantum physics too much, suffice to say that
we're already swimming around in a virtual ocean of random particle
fluxuations. We know this to be true by virtue of modern science. Why
is it so difficult for some to believe that we might discover a way to
tap that particle flux by using some method of relatively passive
rectification. It's not so conceptually different from charging a battery
from an A.C. power source by using a diode to convert it to D.C.
I'm fairly convinced that Tesla found a method to produce that particle
flux rectification.
Comments?
J. Snell
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Sven Hegewisch
"J. Snell" schrieb:
>
>
> A stirling engine may be mounted so that the hot side completely contains
> the woodburner while the cold side radiates into the local airspace to
> warm the room. It works. It's been done. The average btu output to the
> room remains the same while the stirling outputs usable mechanical
> power as a side effect.
The average "heat energy" output remains the same only if you convert the
mechanical output of the stirling engine to heat!!!!
> Is this "free energy"? Nope. But, to the guy
> who owns the woodstove it's a real bonus. This is the basic idea behind
> any cogen system.
Sven
nightbat
nightbat
I'll take that you would disagree with referenced published Guth
M theory, per your requirement of need for evidence that more the one
universe exists.
the nightbat
Fritz Weaver
>I'm fairly convinced that Tesla found a method to produce that particle
>flux rectification.
The only minor problem is there has never been a perpetual motion machine that
works despite numerous paragraphs describing why it should work.
Regards,
Fritz Weaver
============================
http://www.internet-skeptics.org
============================
"A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." -Maxwell Planck
Richard Herring
<bw...@internet-skeptics.org> writes
>"A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
>making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually
>die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." -Maxwell
>Planck
who?
(I've heard of Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck, but this Maxwell guy is
less familiar.)
--
Richard Herring
Robert Kolker
nightbat wrote:
>
> I'll take that you would disagree with referenced published Guth
> M theory, per your requirement of need for evidence that more the one
> universe exists.
Cosmology is mental masturbation. And Guth has not proved the existence
of a next universe in any case.
Bob Kolker
fred b mcgalliard
"J. Snell" <no...@nunya.not> wrote in message
news:Xns92CDEBBD28BB...@209.25.157.130...
...
> With respect to the 2nd "law" of thermodynamics, it only applies
> "internally" to "closed systems" and has absolutely no other
> application.
Mr. Snell. All one does to make an open system closed is draw an imaginary
line around everything that will go into or out of the experiment during the
evaluation. This does not require anything of the experimenter except a
pretty good idea of what will actually require inclusion to get a consistent
result. For example, you would usually not bother to include the galactic
tide in figuring the tide tables, but you would have to include the moon and
the sun. For thermodynamics, the 2nd law only applies to closed systems, but
all systems can be rendered closed by just drawing the line correctly.
puppe...@hotmail.com
> Cosmology is mental masturbation.
[snips]
Well, first order crackpot. But most cosmologists will admit
that, at least when drunk.
What's really getting into fragmentary crockery is when folks
do cosmology using some alternative theory of gravity or
particle physics or some such. Or when they bring such things
as 3-D gravity back into "regulation" physics and start messing
with it. Though topologically massive gravity in 2+1 dimensions
is a hell of a lot of fun to play with.
Though, even when folks do such things, it is possible for
interesting stuff to be done. It may not have a great deal
of application. But so long as folks don't take it more
seriously than it deserves, it's reasonable work to do.
Socks
Steve Casselman
> > sane and sensible person he would have stepped up and claimed the mantle
> > of "father of radio broadcasting". But he did not, and Marconi get the
> > title for producing an inferior mode of broadcast. The best he could do
> > was transmit the buzzes from sparks.
Tesla did sue the Marconi company over radio and won in the Supreme court
after his death. Tesla is also the only person to turn down the Nobel in
physics. He was awarded the prize for the invention of infrared light which
he was to share with Edison. Since he hated Edison and Edison had nothing
to do with the invention he turned down the prize. Neither he or Edison are
on the Nobel prize list.
Steve
Hatunen
wrote:
>> > Now Tesla broadcast sufficient energy to communicate, and if he were a
>> > sane and sensible person he would have stepped up and claimed the mantle
>> > of "father of radio broadcasting". But he did not, and Marconi get the
>> > title for producing an inferior mode of broadcast. The best he could do
>> > was transmit the buzzes from sparks.
>
>Tesla did sue the Marconi company over radio and won in the Supreme court
>after his death. Tesla is also the only person to turn down the Nobel in
>physics. He was awarded the prize for the invention of infrared light which
>he was to share with Edison.
Eh? Infrared light can't be "invented", only discovered.
I find only one reasonable reference that says Tesla refused, but it
also makes it clear it was never offered, merely discussed. It was
discussed in light of the fact that Marconi had, apparently
erroneously, been awarded the prize for radio. Nothing about infrared.
>Since he hated Edison and Edison had nothing
>to do with the invention he turned down the prize. Neither he or Edison are
>on the Nobel prize list.
Edison didn't invent radio in any case.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Tesla.html says:
There may have been some unusual maneuvering in the awarding of the
1912 or 1915 Nobel Prize. Biographer disagree on the dates, but report
that Tesla was confidentially informed that he was to share the
physics award with Edison, and was then surprised to see it go to a
scientist (Hunt and Draper 1991, pp. 166-171).
Not much there to really hang your hat on.
J. Snell
news:v9fstug2ccfqka8tc...@4ax.com:
> On 21 Nov 2002 21:41:02 -0600, "J. Snell" <no...@nunya.not> wrote:
>
>>I'm fairly convinced that Tesla found a method to produce that
>>particle flux rectification.
>
> The only minor problem is there has never been a perpetual motion
> machine that works despite numerous paragraphs describing why it
> should work.
>
> Regards,
>
> Fritz Weaver
Simply put, perpetual motion doesn't exist. Our only alternative is
to extract energy from locally available sources. A windmill is a
great example of one of these processses. It rectifies local random air
movements allowing energy extraction.
The windmill must first extract enough wind energy to turn itself,
then it must extract more energy to provide for the generation of useful
power output. Viewing a windmill from indoors through a window glass takes
us to a place where we can't necessarily sense the passing wind. All
we see is that the mill is cranking along a providing useful output
power. Gee, I wonder what's making that thing turn like that.
When I can supply a steady 1kw of electrical power to a refrigerant
compressor and receive 3kw or more back in heat for my home, I'm
getting "free energy" from my perspective. This is meaning that all
I'm looking at is how much I, personally, must provide to power
the system vs how much heat I, personally, receive from the
machines output.
Of course, the heat didn't magically appear. It was simply extracted from
another part of the local environment and plopped into the house.
I simply wish to keep an open mind about the possibility of there being
other relatively unknown ambient energy sources available. Tesla, I
believe, may have worked out methods of extracting energy from one of
these sources.
Re-examination of his methods really can't do any harm.
J. Snell
news:3DDDE517...@t-online.de:
>
>
> "J. Snell" schrieb:
>>
>>
>> A stirling engine may be mounted so that the hot side completely
>> contains the woodburner while the cold side radiates into the local
>> airspace to warm the room. It works. It's been done. The average btu
>> output to the room remains the same while the stirling outputs usable
>> mechanical power as a side effect.
>
> The average "heat energy" output remains the same only if you convert
> the mechanical output of the stirling engine to heat!!!!
>
> Sven
Well, no.
The engine operates on the simplest of principles.
1. You heat the gas and it expands.
Let's say 100btu's to properly expand the gas in the chamber.
The gas has now expanded and is holding this same amount of
heat.
2. You cool the gas and it contracts.
That same amount of gas now requires that you remove that
same 100btu's in order for it to contract to it's previous
cold volume.
Stirling engines run only if there is a sufficient temperature
differential between the "hot" and "cold" sides. All the heat that
goes into expanding the gas must be removed by the "cold" side
heat sink and that means dissipating that heat into the airspace
around the stove at a lower temperature.
The stirling cycle slows down the heat transfer rate from the stove
body to the surrounding air space. But, it does not "consume" or
"destroy" the heat to produce mechanical work. If it did, it would
be a btu eater that needs no "cold" side for heat dissipation.
Keep in mind that the stove itself is very hot and by allowing that
heat to freely escape into the local air space it is essentially
dropping from 500 degrees down to about 70 degrees of room temp air.
That's one hell of an entropy increase with little or no work being
done.
That is a "head" of 470 degrees that is simply being wasted. Keeping
your house warm by burning a fuel of some sort is technically not
"doing" any work. You are simply dumping heat into the open air to
keep yourself comfortable and that heat continuously bleeds out
through the walls and ends up outside.
Jamming a stirling cycle system in between the stove and the local
air space allows it to take advantage of the 470 degree differential
between the stove and the air. The "cold" side of the engine will
still be at a higher temp than the air. The system will only delay the
eventual total migration of the stoves btu's into the local air space.
You could almost rightly say that the "time" component of the system
is what provides the mechanical energy since the stove's ability to
heat the air space is slowed down a bit while the total btu's from
the burned fuel remains the same.
nightbat
nightbat
Wouldn't you, if they were going to award you the Nobel honor
with the person who tried cheating and stopping you at every chance he
had. The Edison Medal too was going to be awarded to Tesla but felt it
also an insult for his invention of practical AC transmission, he
stated, if it's an Edison metal, give it to him, but why don't they
award me the Tesla Medal, since I actually did it? Edison himself
finally admitted the wonders that his employee Tesla further invented
from the novel Edison invention of the incandescent vacuum bulb.
the nightbat
daestrom
"J. Snell" <no...@nunya.not> wrote in message
news:Xns92CDEBBD28BB...@209.25.157.130...
> than 100%. But, it's coefficient of performance is almost always better
> than 3:1. Allow me to clarify.
>
> The total output of a heatpump is the sum of the electrical input and the
> heat input minus any electromechanical losses in the system.
>
> The user (you or me) only provides the electrical input to drive the pump.
> The heat comes from the local environment of the evaporator core.
>
> 1 unit of electrical input will cause a bare minimum of 3 equivalent heat
> units to be collected at the evaporator and concentrated for heat output
> at the condenser at a higher temperature.
>
> 1 unit of user energy equals a minimum of 3 usable units of heat for the
> user. The environment provided the extra energy.
I agree with most of what you say, but you have a misconception about heat
pumps. If a heat pump uses 1 unit to collect three units of heat energy,
four units will be delivered. The work of compression and losses within the
electric motor are both delivered to the home, not the environment. The
coolant from the evaporator flows through the compressor motor, cooling it
and carrying the energy into the home. In fact, the only energy not
delivered to the home is the heat lost from the insulated piping carrying
the liquid refrigerent outside before the expansion valve and the energy of
the fan blowing air across the evaporator (if it is an air-cooled unit).
Actually, if the COP is 3.0, then the environment supplies two units of heat
for each unit of electrical energy consumed. All three units of energy are
delivered to the home in the condenser. COP is heat delivered divided by
energy consumed, not the heat absorbed in the evaporator.
daestrom
daestrom
"J. Snell" <no...@nunya.not> wrote in message
>
> The engine operates on the simplest of principles.
>
> 1. You heat the gas and it expands.
>
> Let's say 100btu's to properly expand the gas in the chamber.
> The gas has now expanded and is holding this same amount of
> heat.
>
energy than the 100 btu's.
> 2. You cool the gas and it contracts.
>
> That same amount of gas now requires that you remove that
> same 100btu's in order for it to contract to it's previous
> cold volume.
Nope. Stirling as well as any other heat engine reject *less* heat to the
environment than are put in by the heat source. The difference is the
mechanical work output. If you could get work from it while rejecting 100%
to the heat sink, you would have an over unity device.
> Stirling engines run only if there is a sufficient temperature
> differential between the "hot" and "cold" sides. All the heat that
> goes into expanding the gas must be removed by the "cold" side
> heat sink and that means dissipating that heat into the airspace
> around the stove at a lower temperature.
No, all the heat that goes into raising the temperature/pressure of the gas
is *not* rejected to the heat sink. As the gas expands against the pistion
(doing work), the gas cools partly. Since it is now cooler, not all the
heat put into it is rejected to the heat-sink. You must still have a heat
sink, that is true, but the rate of heat flow into the sink is less than the
rate of heat flow from the source. The difference is mechanical work.
>
> The stirling cycle slows down the heat transfer rate from the stove
> body to the surrounding air space. But, it does not "consume" or
> "destroy" the heat to produce mechanical work. If it did, it would
> be a btu eater that needs no "cold" side for heat dissipation.
Any heat-engine converts some of the heat from the source to mechanical
work. That is part of the definition of 'heat-engine'. Only part of the
heat from the source is rejected to the sink.
>
> Keep in mind that the stove itself is very hot and by allowing that
> heat to freely escape into the local air space it is essentially
> dropping from 500 degrees down to about 70 degrees of room temp air.
> That's one hell of an entropy increase with little or no work being
> done.
>
> That is a "head" of 470 degrees that is simply being wasted. Keeping
> your house warm by burning a fuel of some sort is technically not
> "doing" any work. You are simply dumping heat into the open air to
> keep yourself comfortable and that heat continuously bleeds out
> through the walls and ends up outside.
>
> Jamming a stirling cycle system in between the stove and the local
> air space allows it to take advantage of the 470 degree differential
> between the stove and the air. The "cold" side of the engine will
> still be at a higher temp than the air. The system will only delay the
> eventual total migration of the stoves btu's into the local air space.
Ah.... Now I think I see where you're coming from. You're treating heat as
it flows from a high temperature to low temperature much like water flowing
from hi pressure to low pressure. That is not an accurate analogy.
'Jamming' a heat-engine (stirling or any other) between the stove and the
local air space reduces the amount of heat dumped to the local air space.
The energy extracted by the heat-engine is not later dumped to the air space
unless the mechanical work is re-converted back to heat (such as a fan). If
the heat-engine were to drive an electric generator for example, and the
generator wiring carried the electrical energy outside to the barn, there
would be less heat in the local air space.
daestrom
Chris Torek
daestrom <daes...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>Any heat-engine converts some of the heat from the source to mechanical
>work. That is part of the definition of 'heat-engine'. Only part of the
>heat from the source is rejected to the sink.
(Yes, some of the heat is converted to a more-useful form of energy.)
>> Jamming a stirling cycle system in between the stove and the local
>> air space allows it to take advantage of the 470 degree differential
>> between the stove and the air. The "cold" side of the engine will
>> still be at a higher temp than the air. The system will only delay the
>> eventual total migration of the stoves btu's into the local air space.
>Ah.... Now I think I see where you're coming from. You're treating heat as
>it flows from a high temperature to low temperature much like water flowing
>from hi pressure to low pressure. That is not an accurate analogy.
>'Jamming' a heat-engine (stirling or any other) between the stove and the
>local air space reduces the amount of heat dumped to the local air space.
>The energy extracted by the heat-engine is not later dumped to the air space
>unless the mechanical work is re-converted back to heat (such as a fan). If
>the heat-engine were to drive an electric generator for example, and the
>generator wiring carried the electrical energy outside to the barn, there
>would be less heat in the local air space.
This is all quite right, of course, but it is worth noting that
"jamming a heat engine in" can still be useful. In the particular
case of electricity, for instance, if one's available alternatives
are:
- use electricity generated at a coal-burning plant, plus heat
generated locally by burning gas or coal or whatever; or
- use electricity generated at a natgas-burning plant, plus
heat generated locally by burning gas or coal or whatever
then we can observe that the heat produced at the (presumably
distant) thermal-to-electricity plant is more often than not "waste"
heat that must simply be rejected, while the locally-produced
electricity+heat combination is "all good". In other words, the
total system efficiency goes up.
In these cases, it makes sense to use distributed (co)generation,
as long as the price is right.
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems (BSD engineering)
Salt Lake City, UT, USA Domain: to...@bsdi.com
http://67.40.109.61/torek/ (for the moment)
(you probably cannot email me -- spam has effectively killed email)
fred b mcgalliard
"J. Snell" <no...@nunya.not> wrote in message
...
> Simply put, perpetual motion doesn't exist. Our only alternative is
> to extract energy from locally available sources. A windmill is a
> great example of one of these processses. It rectifies local random air
> movements allowing energy extraction.
You should have said irregular. The wind is not a random air movement. It is
coherent.
fred b mcgalliard
and as useful work adds up to 0.00>>>. This means that if you take 10Kjoules
from the hot side and get 1Kjoules of work, you only have to dump 9KJoules
of heat to the cold side. If the stove were hot enough, and the room cool
enough, only a small portion of the heat would come out and most of it would
be at least temporarily "lost" as useful work. This could be stored up in
ways that would not return the heat for a very long time, but of course
whenever we do any work we would get it back as heat then.
"J. Snell" <no...@nunya.not> wrote in message
news:Xns92CEC5F2AC0B...@209.25.157.130...
> Sven Hegewisch <Sven.He...@t-online.de> wrote in
> news:3DDDE517...@t-online.de:
>
> >
> >
> > "J. Snell" schrieb:
> >>
> >>
> >> A stirling engine may be mounted so that the hot side completely
> >> contains the woodburner while the cold side radiates into the local
> >> airspace to warm the room. It works. It's been done. The average btu
> >> output to the room remains the same while the stirling outputs usable
> >> mechanical power as a side effect.
> >
> > The average "heat energy" output remains the same only if you convert
> > the mechanical output of the stirling engine to heat!!!!
> >
> > Sven
>
> Well, no.
>
> The engine operates on the simplest of principles.
>
> 1. You heat the gas and it expands.
>
> Let's say 100btu's to properly expand the gas in the chamber.
> The gas has now expanded and is holding this same amount of
> heat.
>
> 2. You cool the gas and it contracts.
>
> That same amount of gas now requires that you remove that
> same 100btu's in order for it to contract to it's previous
> cold volume.
>
> Stirling engines run only if there is a sufficient temperature
> differential between the "hot" and "cold" sides. All the heat that
> goes into expanding the gas must be removed by the "cold" side
> heat sink and that means dissipating that heat into the airspace
> around the stove at a lower temperature.
>
> The stirling cycle slows down the heat transfer rate from the stove
> body to the surrounding air space. But, it does not "consume" or
> "destroy" the heat to produce mechanical work. If it did, it would
> be a btu eater that needs no "cold" side for heat dissipation.
>
> Keep in mind that the stove itself is very hot and by allowing that
> heat to freely escape into the local air space it is essentially
> dropping from 500 degrees down to about 70 degrees of room temp air.
> That's one hell of an entropy increase with little or no work being
> done.
>
> That is a "head" of 470 degrees that is simply being wasted. Keeping
> your house warm by burning a fuel of some sort is technically not
> "doing" any work. You are simply dumping heat into the open air to
> keep yourself comfortable and that heat continuously bleeds out
> through the walls and ends up outside.
>
> Jamming a stirling cycle system in between the stove and the local
> air space allows it to take advantage of the 470 degree differential
> between the stove and the air. The "cold" side of the engine will
> still be at a higher temp than the air. The system will only delay the
> eventual total migration of the stoves btu's into the local air space.
>
>
daestrom
"Chris Torek" <nos...@elf.eng.bsdi.com> wrote in message
news:ars00p$839$1...@elf.eng.bsdi.com...
Absolutely. I only wish that residential cogen was more widely available.
Unfortunately in NY, the net-metering laws only apply to solar. Course I
have 'issues' with *net* metering, but would gladly use a NG cogen system
with TOU metering if it were more cost-effective. And I would want a
*quiet* unit so not disrupt my peaceful retreat :)
daestrom