Tom Booth

I'm trying to work this out on paper, to figure out what might actually happen through the cycle where the "ice engine" in (and out of) the freezer has a ratchet, so does work in both directions. First heat is removed, the ice swells and lifts or pushes whatever mechanism doing work. Pretty straightforward. Where I'm getting hung up is when the machine is removed from the freezer and the ice melts and returns to a liquid. Atmospheric pressure contributes to the reduction in volume, which also winds the ratchet doing additional work. The temperature of the ice, doesn't actually c

Ok, I'll have to take your word for it, But I'm still convinced that the combined effects of JT, heat loss from compressed air held back in the mouth, work done by the gas as it expands escaping pressurization through pursed lips pushing air aside, cooling from expansion itself, and the combined synergistic effect of all these elements put together, all as a consequence of the blowing through pursed lips, or a restriction, throttle, orifice This cooling method is so widely used everywhere in every day life and in so many vital industrial processes I hesitate to just dismiss it as a contr

There is a little confusion between different experiments, 1) heat engine running on hot water 2) heat engine running on ice (actually ambient heat) Regardless, If heat flows into the engine to be converted into mechanical energy bringing the temperature of the gas within the engine down to the same temperature as the ice (the sink), no matter how well insulated, given the limitations of my little home laboratory in my kitchen, the ice, OUTSIDE OF THE ENGINE, is still subject to some heat infiltration from the environment, and so will eventually melt, even if no heat is reaching the ice

That's about 87.7 grams pressure per square inch, if my use of an online calculator can be trusted. But I have studied this phenomenon in some depth, and from what I've read, the effect is (or can often be) cumulative. That is something rarely mentioned in the textbooks. That is, there is a temperature drop that may be compounded over time. The cooling effect the first instant is added to that of the second, etc. So what may look like almost nothing on paper, in reality can be quite significant. Some sources also say a "normal person" may produce a pressure from 1 to 2

Sorry, my mistake. The video about Stirling cryo-coolers was another thread that was locked and moved to "speculations". How is the video "speculation"? It was produced by Phillips Cryogenics, a company that builds the things. I should think they would know. I was simply saying the thread was locked. The final post was yours and asked me a specific question. It would have been nice to have had the opportunity to answer you. That is all. This was the context of the question. I'm not trying to reopen the thread, just FYI. I don't want to

The thread was locked, and is still locked. No specific reason was given so I can only speculate, but posting that video seemed to be the immediate issue, or my argument that it was certainly Germain to the conversation. It supported my argument from what should, I think, have been considered a reliable and authoritative source on the subject. You may not know how these threads relate to one another, but they most certainly do.

Here, I would have loved to answer Swansont's last question on the thread but got locked out before I could answer. Apparently because I posted a video that supported my statement that a Stirling engine is functionally, exactly the same as a Stirling cryo-cooler: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/122721-heat-engine-experiments-and-2nd-law-of-thermodynamics/#comments Or if the discussion were at least allowed to continue, maybe he could have set my thinking straight on the subject under discussion. Which again, as with this thread, had to do with how engine "Carnot efficiency"

The banning of discussion on the subject, locking threads, suspending my account on forums, is certainly real enough, for what is perceived by the forum moderators, no doubt to be legitimate reasons.

And why do you think that is? It was intended as a joke but who knows. Sometimes it seems there is some grain of truth behind some of it. The US government does at times exercise jurisdiction over inventions with potential military application. I'm not sure all the rumors are entirely without foundation, but tend not to take the conspiracy theories seriously.

Reading these passages, it seems almost all Tesla's inventions revolved around this particular pursuit for many years, or comprised various elements of his "self Acting Engine" which was a combination of several of his inventions. He says his work was delayed, due to his workshop burning down, then he deduced, the engine would work, but would not be as effective as he had originally hoped, in the end he became distracted by other discoveries and projects. The truth may be, he never succeeded because what he was attempting was actually an impossibility. A violation of the second law

Sure, quite happy to oblige, though posting outside links, requiring a lot of reading is discouraged on some science forums, maybe I'm thinking of someplace else, but for everybody's convenience it might be a good idea to post the relevant passages as it is a very long and rambling article. Here is one link where the PDF can be freely downloaded, though, there is a copyright notice apparently applying to this particular digital version, there are others available and the text itself is public domain. https://www.unz.com/print/Century-1900jun-00175 Scroll down or search for the s

Off topic? That was the OP's theory, plain as day. The general story, the fable, is not any kind of theory to be tested. A question is not a theory to be tested. Certainly other variables, like the cupped hands could and should also be isolated and tested, one at a time and in combination before any hard conclusions are drawn. You are right to point out that there are other variables and possible contributing factors, but how something feels to the hands subjectively is not always reliable and I'm not sure how it was deduced that one method or the other of blowing on the tea

I read, and now have reread both. I come to much the same conclusion. The theory being investigated is does blowing through pursed lips or open mouth result in cooling/heating, or rather, does the shape of the orifice make the difference. A scientific method would endeavor to eliminate all variables other than the variable in question: the shape of the orifice. Open or restrictive. Lungs, tea, cupped hands, human flesh, evaporative cooling, and potentially biased and subjective human interpretations etc. are all variables that could skew the results.

I don't think using cupped hands is without flaw as an experiment the chamber created, as you point out, causes increased pressure which modifies the conditions and changes the temperature of the air. Try the same experiment on the open back of the hand. I don't know about you, but I can feel a distinct difference. A thin stream of air through pursed lips feels cooler than the hot breath from an open mouth. If the hand it too close though, there will be an increase in pressure from the thin stream, much the same as with cupped hands and no noticable difference will be felt. A m

OK, so the colder we can get the fridge, the more work we can get out of the expanding ice. I'm not sure that is necessarily a major problem, but something to consider for sure. It may be that we, or I or whomever might try this, ends up chasing their own tail so to speak, trying to get the fridge cold enough to do enough work to get the fridge cold enough to do enough work to keep the fridge cold enough to keep the fridge cold, etc. etc. I hate to have to mention the apparently unmentionable, as it usually gets me in trouble, but a pretty smart fellow wrote about this same problem back in