Jump to content

Tom Booth

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    233
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tom Booth

  1. Yes, I thought so, as I mentioned, something didn't look right. The result of a hasty cut n paste on the Stirling engine forum, which I then repeated here. Which "It". Sorry, I copied the wrong equation to start with. The Carnot efficiency is what I meant to address. At any rate, that a theory is more or less consistent with itself is no empirical validation. Please site an example. I've heart this affirmation repeated over and over and over, but that seems to be all it is. I've scoured through the available literature for ten years and find no accounts whatsoever of
  2. I don't see what is so contradictory about saying I understand a point of view, I just don't completely share that point of view. Given my way of looking at things and my experiences in life, I see things differently. I'm willing to discuss it, and I will try very hard to understand why someone else thinks the way they do, or sees things differently, and I'm more than willing to be convinced, if the argument or explanation they present makes sense. But when people just take on an air of authority and expect me to accept whatever they say without question, I'm not impressed. For examp
  3. Methylene chloride is what's inside the drinking bird, everybody probably already knows that though. If someone wants to run a heat engine on evaporative cooling though, I think it's more practical to use a Stirling engine. There are a number of ways I think this one could be improved. Not my engine or my video BTW. The guy that built this engine died several years ago. This engine is running on only a 2.5 °C temperature gradient. Not many have succeeded in building a model heat engine this sensitive. I can see there is a vent hole, which is usually needed in a d
  4. I think I can legitimately state with absolute honesty that About 10 or 12 years ago I 100% accepted that a heat engine operated by shunting heat from the hot side of the engine to the cold side. It made perfect sense to me. I was on the Stirling engine forums asking questions, reading, and just wanted to know how they worked so maybe I could build one to run off my wood stove. I studied, read, watched hundreds of videos and had no reason to doubt the accepted, consensus wisdom on the forums. If you heat up air it expands and pushes the piston. If you then cool down the same air
  5. Sorry, I stated that the wrong way around, but maybe someone gets what I mean. If 70°F is taken to be "all the heat" 20°F is the sink. In kelvin that's a 27.778 difference. So if we divide all the heat by 100 so that 294.261K = all the heat that's 2.94261 So taking the difference and divide by 2.94261 we get the same exact value as the "efficiency" to like the tenth+ decimal place. So called maximum heat engine "efficiency" is just the temperature difference on the Kelvin scale written as a percentage? From my pov, it seems like nobody else is "getti
  6. My reason for appearing here, was, a little over a week ago, I had posted a question on the Stirling Engine Forum I frequent: There was no response. So I thought perhaps the knowledgeable folks on this or another Science forum might have some input. I don't think I've received an unequivocal answer. Perhaps the equation can't be used because this engine doesn't behave in the expected way, and something about steam tables and not having a glacier or something along those lines. Would anyone else like to offer an opinion? Maybe just an ordinary heat engine? So treat it as
  7. I don't think I'm hung up on anything. I think maybe you might be though. I just said that the engine does not convert "ambient heat" into work. It converts "chemical potential energy in liquid water" into work. I don't think it can be factually stated that the distinction makes no difference. To say that it converts "ambient heat" into work implies some continuity or causative connection between the ambient heat and the work, but I question if that is actually a fact. The energy represented by chemical potential energy could have come into existence by any number of possib
  8. Agreed. So when we have "chemical potential energy in liquid water" sitting there. Is that a flow? Where do you see any heat? No flow, no heat. Is that not correct?
  9. Thanks for taking the time to explain your point of view, which I don't necessarily totally disagree with. But in the economy of energy, we have the conservation of energy: "Energy can never be created or destroyed it can only change form." Putting that in economic tems, if I start out with US dollars and convert that to euros. I no longer have any dollars. The dollars are gone, and now I'm now carrying euros. If I then convert the Euros to Yen, well those original dollars are nowhere to be found, so if I then convert some of those Yen into British pounds and the rest back into
  10. Hopefully the relevance is obvious to others. It's just an example of the conversion of heat to work in a thermally controlled, heat restricted environment. When a substance does "work" and cannot take in additional heat, from the surroundings, the work is accomplished at the expense of internal energy, which accelerates the change of state In this case, causing the water-ice to freeze more rapidly. (Perhaps almost instantaneously, like a bottle of drinking water super-cooled in the freezer can suddenly freeze when agitated), the same way a gas doing work in a COLD insulated turbin
  11. Well here are a few additional references I'll be so irresponsible as to post about a non-existant process that the so-called cowboy operations can peruse for their entertainment. https://www.laturbine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Fundamentals-TBX-GPLNG.pdf L.A. Turbine - 28557 Industry Drive, Valencia, CA 91355 - manufactures and services turbo-expanders. http://rddynamics.com/products/turboexpand.html R&D Dynamics designs and manufactures turbo-expanders for specific applications. https://machinery-inanutshell.blogspot.com/2014/01/Turboexpan
  12. I don't know where you're coming from but Turbo-expanders are WIDELY used for gas liquefaction. It has practically replaced every other method there is in every industry involved in gas liquefaction all around the world. First you try to deny it exists, apparently because it wasn't on Wikipedia from which you were apparently cp'ing, now you are trying to demonize a standard industrial process, used all around the world. What's your game dude?
  13. What? It's friggin' common knowledge except maybe for (some) in the industry who try to guard it like a trade secret. Which to some degree it (sort of) is. But do you read: "standard in the natural gas industry for liquefaction." not as you suggest "malpractises". At any rate a long way from "Never".
  14. Who I was responding to is right there in the quotation box. How about you stop devolving the conversation into petty attempts at character assassination. If you are unfamiliar with such a use for turbo-expanders, I can provide references, if not banned from the forum before given a chance, which is usual for this juncture. We are talking about turbo-expanders used for gas liquefaction are we not? http://gasprocessingnews.com/features/202006/fundamentals-of-turboexpander-design-and-operation.aspx
  15. What you are referring to is my response to exchemist, Right 🙄
  16. You're referring to a different use case. That's like saying the evaporator in a refrigerator is undesirable because it doesn't produce heat or pressure. A turbo-expander when used to liquefy gases is not meant to produce work, it's meant to liquefy gases. That it succeeds in liquefying gas does not "reduce it's performance" because it does less work. Doing work is not it's purpose. Most turbo-expanders used for liquefaction of gas are bootstrap systems where the work output is used only to reduce the load on the compressor and the two are coupled together on the same shaft
  17. It goes back to my statement that the "ice bomb engine" does NOT use ambient heat to do work at all. You said: "yes it does". My point is, no, it doesn't. Saying the ice bomb engine uses heat to expand is like saying that my car runs on sunlight. I'm saying: no, it runs on gasoline. Ultimately, it can be conjectured that my car does indeed run on sunshine, and in a roundabout way this is correct, but the reality is, my car does not run on sunshine it runs on gasoline. You can trace the potential energy all the way back to the big bang if you want, but the fact rem
  18. Snow in the mountains imperceptibly melting, added together results in a raging river downstream. I can imagine something similar taking place in the pipe, where there is little action to be seen near the extreme interfaces but a considerable surge in between.
  19. I wouldn't go so far as to day "nobody". I may not be 100+1% convinced, but neither are you, right? Or why ask if others here think it's viable or not. I was all geared up to get ready to help build a prototype. I mean, as much as I might play up my "ice bomb" engine from a purely theoretical standpoint, even I have my doubts it would actually work in practice. I'm much more an experimentalist than a theorist. I'm skeptical that I've actually been posting messages on the internet all these years. I might just wake up someday and find out it was all a crazy dream and have to
  20. I'm wondering, why not build a small model, a loop of pipe, a heat lamp in a cold room, some flow meters in the pipeline, a stepper motor to keep it revolving. Like a planetary mobile, to provide a sense of realism. A relatively inexpensive setup I think. Hardly complicated at all. If some actual flow potential is indicated, maybe even spring for some miniature turbines. Someone could probably even 3D print the things on the cheap. Maybe get some actual power output measurements going. And, might this not actually work, (if it works at all that is), on a mid-scale, say for
  21. Ok, well, I'm not surprised, but I would think after all these years in business, such false advertising should have caught up with them. But the fact they are still in business making the same claims, again, makes me wonder. _____________ Returning to the freezer box. I imagine, as the liquid water molecules "release" the "latent heat" it is not dumped into the freezer, rather it is used by the liquid H2O in the construction of it's crystal lattice. Internal molecular bonds or whatever, to form the ice. I question exactly how much "waste heat" would actually be released.
  22. "Chemical potential energy" is not heat. The original ambient heat supplied has already been converted to something else entirely. By lifting a weight in the freezer, the "chemical potential energy" is, at least in part, converted directly into mechanical energy, not heat. So in theory, less heat needs to be removed than what was originally supplied. It is removed to supply power to the load, the spring, or whatever our ratchet device is winding, converting the chemical potential energy into useable form and skipping heat release into the ice box altogether. Perfect energy conversion
  23. This is the confusing part, in that the ice engine does not convert ANY ambient heat into work. Does it? Heat has to be REMOVED. As stated before, hydrogen bonding, or whatever intermolecular forces do the lifting. Molecular Internal energy, not "heat". You can't have a percentage of a negative number. Remove x joules and convert 5% of this "heat input"? It's not heat input, is the point. The "work" output is not a result of any heat input. The heat REMOVAL allows an internal force to dominate, like bringing magnets a little closer together so that SNAP! A much GREATER attracti
  24. It can be confusing, but I'm trying to sort it out myself, not intentionally trying to confuse anyone. Some applicable hard mathematics or PV / entropy charts to clear things up, is what I was hoping for.
  25. Pipe rupture due to water expansion pressure rather than displacement? In a completely rigid pipe, the water sealed between ice dams,... Lots of potential expansion and contraction issues, maybe? If the pipe is elastic to avoid rupture, that reduces horizontal displacement leaving a long pipe that just kind of throbs around, possibly rupturing and ripping itself from its mores like a loose firehouse. But that's just one of those practical challenges. I had a picture flash in my mind of a Nitinol engine. The kind where a loop of Nitinol wire revolves around some wheels.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.