Ghideon

That question have ben answered several times already. Note that some of the input heat energy being converted into useful work output. This is the basic principle behind the operation of a heat engine.

(bold by me) By "account" you mean the total energy input? (Don't forget about the heat that is rejected from a heat engine.)

What does the bold part mean? (Bold highlight by me)

Advice: Maybe you can ask about what established science agrees upon to be correct instead? That may allow for the discussion to progress.

The idea that heat "disappears" during the performance of work in a heat engine seems to be a reasonable a way of expressing the fact that heat energy is converted into other forms of energy, such as mechanical work or kinetic energy, and is no longer available as heat. Note that text was written 1921 and science, and associated descriptions, may have moved on since then. The terminology used to describe the conversion of heat energy into other forms of energy can vary depending on the context and level of detail of the discussion. For example, in some contexts, it may be more appropriate to say that the heat energy is "transferred" or "converted" rather than "disappears", since the energy is still present but has changed form. Similarly, the specific mechanisms by which heat energy is converted into work or other forms of energy may be described in different ways depending on the level of detail and the theoretical framework being used. For instance: Level of detail: At a general level, the focus may be on the overall efficiency or performance of a heat engine or energy system, without necessarily specifying the exact mechanisms of energy transfer or conversion. Context: For example, in the context of engineering or applications, the terminology may be more technical and focused on the practical aspects of energy conversion and efficiency. In the context of a more theoretical or scientific discussion, the terminology may be more abstract. Theoretical framework: The specific theoretical framework being used to describe thermodynamic phenomena can also have an impact on the terminology used. Note that for more understanding and for adding ability to predict behaviour you may use models and mathematics in addition to written descriptions. Hope this helps guiding you toward the more specific answer you requested.

The mass of wind is not a well-defined concept as far as I know. Wind is better characterized by its velocity, pressure, and density. edit: x-post with @Lorentz Jr; good answer, see above

Thanks for the helpful analysis @sethoflagos! It confirms my understanding of the situation. My question was directed at OP; given this is posted in speculations I expected an analysis. Strawman does not work as an argument in science.

During this week I've (re)learned about the basic principles and laws of thermo dynamics and their physical consequences. For reasons unknown I did not like the subject at all when studying physics and I've not used it theoretically as an engineer. With the help of several regular members* I've improved my understanding by arguing in favour of mainstream science in a recent thread in speculations. The scientific definitions/concepts "temperature", "heat", "heat transfer", "entropy", "heat death of the universe" and more does now have a meaning. I might even take a look at the mathematics again, time will tell... Thanks, /G *) @sethoflagos, @studiot, @joigus, @exchemist ... sorry if I neglected anyone, I'm not going to dig through the 400+ pots in the thread again...

Physics. Open a thread in mainstream section and ask; there are many members with adequate skills that can explain the deeper details if my basic skills about Newton, Lagrange and Noether is not enough.

That's why I keep my mind open to new ideas* and use heuristics to navigate around old failed stuff. I know for instance that a Perpetuum Mobile of Villard de Honnecourt does not work; it does not matter if it is painted in a new color. Regarding the idea in the opening post; do we neglect the mass of some of the moving components? *) In my profession new ideas emerge almost daily. Not new physics but new ideas that really challenges what is established.

Bold by me. Awareness about the limits of physics may save time; focusing efforts on what is possible and rejecting the impossible ideas early.

Are we discussing what is possible according to established laws of physics or new/modified laws of physics?

Ok. How about conservation of energy?

There seems to be four stirling engines in the first picture, what are those for?

It's just a quick idea based on what you posted earlier, nothing worth exploring further if there is no interest.

What you proposed: But you have not given any details as far as I can see.

Side note while I wait answers to some previous questions: Have you thought of combining the two types of arrangements? It is probably too mechanically complicated to be useful or realisable but may trigger further ideas: Arrange an even number of Stirling engines in a "Stirling Ring"; hot against hot and cold against cold in a circle. In this thought experiment, what could be the result when applying your ideas?

You seem to cherry pick the first picture? What about the picture that show the experiment at a later state?

Good idea. PoE (Power over Ethernet) may also be applicable; one PoE & LAN signal repeater somewhere between house and caravan Personally I prefer a wall jack and a patch cable between wall & equipment.

I disagree, there are too many unknown variables. I don't see how that experiment helps you debunk established theories. I'll take a look at this later!

And without ice as a complicating factor?

One reason for me to ask questions and try to get into the details about your hypotheses and your possible explanations is to find possible improvements in the experiments. For instance if ice was crucial to the experiment I would suggest various ways to get repetitive results from that. If low temperature is the thing that actually is required I intuitively try to simplify how to cool the things instead of how to manage the ice. And maybe if the problem is to get the engines staring when cold side is at ambient temperature that can be managed as well. It all serves to remove variable things that others could have problems to repeat or that may be tricky to reproduce in your setup. None of these requires an explanation of the result before running the experiment but it helps to create a setup that have fewer sources of errors while at the same time does not introduce bias regarding the hypothesis. Why do you have to ask; isn't it obvious since you know thermodynamics? (And I will not try to explain; you asked me not to:)

Thanks for your reply. My intention was to support your comment by adding a scientific example where Carnot terminology was used in what I believed was at the edge of its applicability. Sorry if I misinterpreted and added confusion. I have not (yet) possess the knowledge to comment on the results or methods in the paper. Thanks; that seems to be the point I tried to make by providing the example.

Based on personal experience from my garage; the second law of thermodynamics can be compared to the contents of a spilled assortment box. The contents of the box tend to end up in a disorganized mess. The probability of the contents of the box becoming sorted is low. (Side note: Here is a video describing the statistical aspect of thermodynamics; the description does not rely upon archaic steam engines: https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/chemical-processes/thermodynamics-mcat/v/second-law-of-thermodynamics)

@Tom Booth here is an example where the scientists probe at the limits of applicability: ... Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys3518.pdf (I do not wish to take the discussion off topic, we discuss the case of Carnot limit for macroscopic engines. Just wanted to share in case there is any interest in papers discussing limits of applicability in the context of Studiots comment.)