Ghideon

40 minutes ago, Tom Booth said:

To answer your immediate question though, placing two engines together with their cold sides adjacent one another is an interesting idea.

A quick followup; let's assume the engines cold sides are adjacent (in contact) and that they are insulated (for instance using the materials you proposed early in the thread) so cold side is not disturbed by room temperature. What is your opinion* about the overall efficiency of the combination of two engines versus the sum of the two engines running separated from one another? Do your ideas allow for some additional gain since the two adjacent cold sides "help each other", if I understand you correctly.

*) According to your ideas

38 minutes ago, Tom Booth said:

Some professor teaching thermodynamics made a blunder, maybe 150 years ago and this nonsense has been perpetuated ever since

If you wish to continue the discussion you may want to focus on the experiments instead.

4 hours ago, Tom Booth said:

I had theorized that if expansion work had a cooling effect on the working fluid. Perhaps the working fluid was getting colder than the "sink" itself (sink = ambient outside the engine) and insulating the sink could, perhaps, increase the ∆T by blocking heat infiltration by ambient heat. That is, if the engine could increase its own temperature differential as it ran, insulation might actually help it to do that BETTER!

If this is still something you want to test, adding heating to the cold side may help in this scenario? I get the impression that your idea* allows for two Stirling engines to be mounted cold plate to cold plate to increase the efficiency of both the engines? 

*) If correct that is...

15 hours ago, Tom Booth said:

Small flat ceramic heating elements.

Could slip that right inside the engine above the bottom plate to heat the working fluid directly.

Quick note; have you been thinking about adding identical heating elements to both the hot plate and cold sink? A small element under the insulation on the cold side could add control to the temperature difference? I don't mean you should crank up the heat, just add a way to tune the temperature and observe how behaviour depends on temperature. Maybe in combination with the probes you posted above? https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/128644-is-carnot-efficiency-valid/?do=findComment&comment=1227752

(Sorry if this already discussed, I may have missed some nuances of the experimental details)

1 hour ago, Tom Booth said:

You mean like the drinking bird?

That is an actual thing you know.

You believe the screenshot from the video describes how a drinking bird works? You may reduce your confusion by posting references to written material instead of videos. 

Anyway, your comment highlights some of the issues; the video contains existing things mixed with non-mainstream concepts.

Screenshot from the video @Tom Booth. It would be easier to quote text...

You claim the video is based on your ideas and the video promotes devices that are impossible according to established physics.

3 hours ago, Tom Booth said:

As I vaguely understand the so-called "Over Unity" concept, which I by the way DO NOT espouse in any way personally that would constitute a ratio of 500,000 Joules in and > 500,000 Joules out. 500,000 joules SUPPLIED by ME or my heating element or whatever and some additional amount supplied by the "Orgone energy" or some such preposterous nonsense.

The proposed ideas and the links provided speaks in favour of physically impossible devices usually labelled "over-unity".

A possible cause, (good point @sethoflagos) :

2 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

I think one of the main issues is a very confusing terminology.

When over unity support creeps into a discussion it is interesting to know if it is due to bad faith argumentation or ignorance regarding physics.

 I'll postpone my pictures and attempts at a discussion about a simplified system until we know what the agenda is.

On 1/26/2023 at 11:05 AM, Tom Booth said:

The "heat" of the particle does not need to be subsequently removed to a sink after this "fall" in temperature. The heat (motion/kinetic energy) has already been transfered to the piston and transformed into mechanical motion.

The whole Carnot water mill idea is juvenile and should be completely discarded once and for all. There is no "benefit" in it whatsoever.

On 1/27/2023 at 9:54 PM, Tom Booth said:

In this thread I'm just trying to find out basically, If I supply 500,000 joules of heat to a Stirling engine and  the Carnot efficiency limit calculations reveal that at best, only 100,000 joules of that heat can be converted to work, why can't I seem to find the other 400,000 joules?

Why is my engines "sink" not heating up more than it appears to be, especially when smothered by  insulation?

Maybe it is heating up under the insulation. So why doesn't it stop running?

On 1/26/2023 at 1:09 PM, Tom Booth said:

If the Carnot efficiency be 20% then supposedly, only 20% of the heat supplied (above the ambient baseline) will be available to convert into "work" output. The other 80% of the heat supplied MUST be eliminated, "rejected" to the sink or "cold reservoir". (According to generally accepted theory ala Carnot limit)

So where is the misunderstanding?

If your hypothesis is correct* one consequence is that it allows for less complicated devices to act as heat engines and it also allows for over unity devices**. Since over unity devices / perpetual motion does not exist according to established theories there is a misunderstanding somewhere. Looking at a simpler devices (compared to a complete Stirling engine) may be helpful. 

(I'll try to fix the missing images later)

*) As far as I can understand your hypothesis by reading your comments, reading between the lines and the fact that link to over unity device support is posted.

**) @sethoflagos raised a related point already; it might have been lost in all the details about the experiments

On 1/27/2023 at 3:20 PM, sethoflagos said:

If the Carnot limit was only a little bit of an underestimate, we'd have over unity-machines and all that nonsense. 

29 minutes ago, Tom Booth said:

BTW your images are not displaying.

I'll try to fix that.

3 minutes ago, Tom Booth said:

Newtons first law of motion is a basic physical principle. To assume mass, friction etc. can be neglected would, I dare say constitute pseudoscience, or at least a departure from reality.

 

You can for instance neglect friction if the friction is very low compared to other forces. It does not mean friction is exactly zero. It means that the friction is low enough to allow for other forces, more important to the discussion, to dominate. 

But if you wish to complicate things, feel free to modify my example. It will not change the end result or principles, but likely make the discussion more complicated than necessary. 

12 minutes ago, studiot said:

sterling refers to money, gold and silver

Thanks; I need to update the spelchek on my computer. 

6 minutes ago, Tom Booth said:

You seem to be forgetting Newtons first law of motion.

Thanks; we assume the device mass to be negligible and friction is neglected.  (It is an ideal setup intended to illustrate basic physical principles, not engineering) 

1 hour ago, Tom Booth said:

Sure

Let's try*. An ideally isolated and closed cylinder contains a piston. Insulation is ideal / perfect; no heat can flow in or out of the cylinder or through the piston and no gas can escape the cylinder or pass by the cylinder:

Heat is added (for instance through a temporary opening in the perfect insulation:

Since the gas in the lower compartment, below the piston, is heated the piston is pushed up. The heat source is removed and perfect isolation is (re)applied. The system is now at rest and will remain so indefinitely since no heat can be transferred in or out or through the cylinder:

Ok so far? If so we may move on to the next part.

*) I see this as an opportunity to learn; I'm sure expert members will highlight any errors in my attempt.

1 hour ago, Tom Booth said:

Why Tom is an "Over Unity" crank. A "perpetual motion" nut. An incompetent ignoramus who doesn't understand the terminology etc. etc.

I would rather say Tom creates some cool experiments and uses a variety of methods and equipment to observe the behaviour of sterling engines under different conditions. But when trying to explain the observed behaviour one can choose to relay on mainstream science or unscientific fringe stuff like Over Unity / Perpetual Motion. If seeking support for the second option on a forum devoted to the first option it should not be too surprising to meet some resistance.

I think I grasp where the basic misunderstanding of physics is; I might try to explain if there is some interest. 

11 hours ago, Tom Booth said:

Oh well. Some food for thought anyway in connection with all this:

This could be a suitable label for the video as it is posted in the mainstream section on a scientific forum:

Quote

"NOTE: The video you are about to watch contains false and misleading information. The claims made in this video have not been scientifically proven and are not supported by evidence. We strongly advise viewers to approach this content with skepticism and to seek out credible sources for information."

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Yes, Tom is a perpetual motion machine of the second kind devotee. He thinks all heat can be converted to work, with no waste heat rejected.  

Thanks for confirming my suspicions regarding the presented ideas.

11 hours ago, Tom Booth said:

As far as I understand the forum rules, it is apparently forbidden to bring up a "closed" topic. I believe I was previously banned from the forum as a result of just mentioning a YouTube video of one of my experiments that I had previously posted (in a topic that was closed), so I'm kind of in a bind and I'm probably already walking on thin ice with this topic as well, I imagine.

You might want to look for me on the Stirling engine forum and ask questions there.

In this thread I'm just trying to find out basically, If I supply 500,000 joules of heat to a Stirling engine and  the Carnot efficiency limit calculations reveal that at best, only 100,000 joules of that heat can be converted to work, why can't I seem to find the other 400,000 joules?

Why is my engines "sink" not heating up more than it appears to be, especially when smothered by  insulation?

Maybe it is heating up under the insulation. So why doesn't it stop running?

So... I'm drilling some holes in the dang thing and inserting temperature probes everywhere I can to hopefully find out what's really going on.

I don't really understand exactly why finding that the engine actually utilized one hundred thousand and one joules and only "rejected" 399,998 joules all known laws of the universe would suddenly burn to ashes or something.

Sorry to hear that you feel that forum rules prevents a hypothesis to be posted.

What I read between the lines is that the idea is basically a perpetuum mobile / over unity device (deliberately or by mistake) hidden in lots of engineering details. 

On 1/26/2023 at 12:31 PM, Tom Booth said:

It is a continuation of the same line of research.

 

Thanks for your reply. I do not yet have the skills required to dig into the details of the setup and the technical discussion, can you provide a simple statement of a hypothesis you are testing? The topic is "Is Carnot efficiency valid?" and maybe there is some way to state your ideas something like: "An ideal* sterling engine running from an input power X will in a perfectly isolated environment have the output power of Y".

This may help separate any misunderstandings about sterling engines and physics from the technical details of the actual experimental setup.

*) Of course not possible to build but maybe useful in stating an idea.

15 hours ago, swansont said:

But you’ve insulated the device. Which means the hot side can be hotter and stay hot. Before insulation the heat differential is likely smaller.

Good question. A few years back I think I think I asked the same thing:

Quote

Is there any chance that the observed effect is caused by the insulation on the hot side?...

Reference: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/122721-heat-engine-experiments-and-2nd-law-of-thermodynamics/?do=findComment&comment=1149108

What is the difference between the 2020 setup and the new one above @Tom Booth? 

On 1/16/2023 at 2:59 PM, DanMP said:

As for any anomaly/discrepancy, you must find and eliminate all the (possible) errors and/or redo the experiment, until you are sure that the "anomaly/discrepancy" is real.

So how do you eliminate the errors? 

Question @DanMP from a more naive/layman point of view: Assume we send a high precision clock as part of some planned mission. Also assume the clock measures time on the surface of the moon (or other celestial body) and there is a deviation compared to GR* predictions. Which one of A and B the likely cause?

A: GR is incorrect/incomplete in this scenario; new physics/modified GR is needed to explain.
B: The clock does not work as predicted. There are issues due to the environment (temperate, pressure, ...), the launch, transport or other engineering related issue.

If A actually happened, how do you rule out B? Or convince the scientific community that A is the cause? The scientific consensus as far as I can tell is that A is not possible in the proposed scientific setup. 

*) Or SR

5 minutes ago, stephenuk26 said:

the mass of the walls

The masses A and B are incorrectly placed in picture, A and B should be above skaters instead if f above the walls?

edit: x-post with @Genady; good explanation.

This may be of interest to @DanMP; testing GR in the context of solar gravity by using a Viking spacecraft that landed on Mars. 

Quote

Analysis of 14 months of data obtained from radio ranging to the Viking spacecraft verified, to an estimated accuracy of 0.1%, the prediction of the general theory of relativity that the round-trip times of light signals traveling between the Earth and Mars are increased by the direct effect of solar gravity. 

https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1979ApJ...234L.219R, (bold by me)

(I got inspired by @studiot suggestion and looked for any existing or proposed experiments within the solar system.)

On 12/26/2022 at 4:31 PM, studiot said:

 

I would imagine that the vortex picks up small stone which grind against the sidewall constantantly boring into it along the axis line.

 

Thanks for the update! I'm vaguely familiar with the results from water vortex and gravel grinding on rock, resulting in a "Giant's kettle" (or "glacial pothole"). So intuitively I would say you are correct but I can't speculate about how strong the effect is or time scales involved to have a visible impact on a construction.

(I have been curious about this topic; it was the second thread I interacted in when I joined this forum.)

33 minutes ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

The particles don't go through both slits but as a particle goes through one slit, its virtual antiparticle goes through the other. The predictions of this is that the particles form an interference pattern on a screen.

What is the antiparticle of a photon in your idea?

(Rhetorical question to highlight basic issues of the idea. Some particles, such as the photon, are their own antiparticle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle)

On 12/21/2022 at 8:39 PM, Moontanman said:

but for real WTF is in this video

Skydivers with fireworks?

Here are some example videos:

Link goes to Formation Skydiving (FS), Germany; to the part in the video where skydivers split: https://youtu.be/ph70Z40cB5o?t=271 
Link goes to a video with several camera angles of skydivers utilising pyrotechnics: https://youtu.be/smuNiP9xc8w

Google hint: "night skydiving pyrotechnics"

50 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

If I understand the current models or not does not change the universe and does not make my ideas more or less valid.

But understanding of current models may help you understand how and why your ideas are invalid.

Just now, Genady said:

A sofisticated bs generator.

True. There is "build in logics" to make sure BS is produced:

Quote

Abstract: This paper presents a new theory of quantum mechanics that allows for faster-than-light signaling. The theory is based on the idea that particles can be entangled in such a way that information can be transmitted instantaneously, regardless of the distance between the particles.

We begin by reviewing the current state of the field and the challenges that have been identified in previous work. We then present a new model for entanglement that incorporates the concept of a "quantum wormhole" to enable faster-than-light signaling.

Our model is tested using a series of simulations, and we find that it is able to accurately predict the results of experiments involving entangled particles. We also discuss the implications of our work and its potential applications in fields such as communication and computing.

Overall, our results indicate that faster-than-light signaling is not only possible, but can be achieved using the principles of quantum mechanics. This work has the potential to revolutionize our understanding of the universe and the fundamental laws of physics.

(The query was: can you write a short work of fiction that looks like an abstract of a scientific paper and where faster than light signaling is allowed in quantum mechanics?)