swansont

They also said “It can be both” so I think that counts as an attempt.

Satire is (or can be) a form/subset of humor, is it not?

It can be both, can’t it? There are a number of comedians who do political satire.

Causality is limited by c, which is the speed of light in vacuum, not the speed of light in a medium. There isn’t a scenario where an answer arrives before you send a message for signals slower than c.

How is the bolded part possible, if, as you claim, the engine doesn’t reject heat to the cold reservoir? I didn’t say replicate. I said do it with your setup. “of that sort”? You measured the temperature rise of a cold reservoir that starts below ambient, with a control to assess the heat absorbed from the ambient surroundings?

The USA isn’t exactly the poster child of a government not occupying a stolen land.

It probably took longer to draw those pictures than it would to do the experiment with your engine that has the insulated bolts.

Common sense says the sun revolves around the earth, so the “common sense” ship sailed long ago.

As I said, if the heat transfer was solely from the bolts, there would be an obvious temperature gradient toward the middle. We don’t see that - we see a fairly uniform temperature profile, consistent with heat being transferred through the whole plate. I suggested this experiment on Jan 28, and it took about 10 minutes to complete. You’ve spent more time trying to come up with ways to explain away the results. You’ve apparently spent zero time doing this experiment. I’m not trying to replicate your experiments, and I’ve already noted how useful I find your videos and experiments. I’m trying show that one of your claims is wrong, which you could have made without videos or experiments. Since you have thus far not done some form of this experiment, I went ahead and did it.

I was not trying to replicate an experiment you had conducted. I was doing an experiment that you had not conducted, but probably should have.

Proton colliders don’t have the protons start at rest WRT each other I suspect we are swimming upstream against pop-sci descriptions of QM being used. Once the rigor has been lost, it’s hard to regain it. The probability waves (wave functions) already extend to infinity, so “when they meet” doesn’t make sense. Particles meeting sounds more like the deBroglie waves (the wave nature of quantum particles) which is not identical to the wave function of the Schrödinger equation. A lot of pop-sci discussion never makes this distinction clear.

! Moderator Note This is a science discussion board, and your post isn’t science.

You made the claim in this thread, and it’s apparently part of your Carnot efficiency argument. As I said, you are free to do your own experiment, but since it will obviously undermine your position, I can see why you might hesitate to do it. As a proof-of-principle experiment, I think it’s fine. If I was quantifying the effect it would require more care. I’ll leave it to others to assess my competence.

No. Having hot water in the non-running engine does not test what is under contention, unless you are also asserting that there is no heat transfer across the engine while not running. And that’s ridiculous. No. The test is whether heat is transferred to the cold side while the engine is running. You claim there is none. The only thing that would heat the cold side should be ambient air. Some details don’t affect the result. You don’t need to replicate the exact temperatures, since we aren’t trying to quantify the result. Only show that heat is transferred, since you predict that the value is zero. I showed a thermal image. It shows the temperature profile and would display a temperature gradient if one existed. But you can see that the water near the center is heated as well. No, that’s not what I was testing. You claimed that no heat is sent to the cold reservoir. My experiment was done to show that this is not true. It’s more than zero, which rebuts your claim. The water on top and on the counter was cold, not ice. The temperature displayed by the thermal image shows this. I wasn’t measuring the efficiency. It’s true in regard to your claim that no heat is rejected by this engine

The OP is fixated on the outdated idea of caloric. Heat is not kinetic energy. Heat is the transfer of energy owing to a temperature difference. This can happen via radiation, conduction or convection. The thermal energy of a body is related to kinetic energy of constituent atoms or molecules, which we associate with temperature. But two objects at the same temperature will have not heat transfer between them, despite having vibrational KE Not particularly relevant, as it’s the same for both samples. Room temperature. Higher than air, to be sure, so it would tend to warm the water faster than air would. Which might heat the edge of the water but not the center Again, this would affect the edge, not the center. Only some? It needs to account for all of it if your assertion is correct. The counter was at ambient temperature before the water was added. As I noted, that should heat the water faster. You are free to replicate this, as you have repeatedly been invited to do.

Quick experiment. Heat up water for coffee mug, also chill some water to put on top plate. Get engine running, pour a little water on top plate and also on counter. The water on the cold reservoir plate clearly warmed up faster than the water only subject to ambient air. 17.3 degrees after a minute or so; you can already see some warming at the edges. 24.8 after about four minutes. The ambient pool looks basically unchanged. Picture with my FLIR thermal imager phone attachment

I just checked mine; boiled water and poured it into a coffee mug, put the engine on top and it started up after 10 seconds.

You can go back and read it.

You also need to look at round trip times, since the time it takes to traverse the train car in the station’s frame depends on the direction of motion. Light travels at c, but the end of the car is moving toward or away from the photon. The station observer sees it travel more or less than 5m, depending on direction. “We would see it take 1 second for the horizontal beam to travel 5 m, in the train car frame” No. In the train car frame, it travels 10m. In the train car frame, the car is stationary. I concur with studiot: you are mixing frames, and that destroys the validity of any analysis. (There’s also the conundrum of why people who are trying to understand a difficult topic choose to make the examples inordinately complicated. It’s math, and the math is internally consistent. Simplicity is a friend. Making the math harder just makes the math harder)

So any change in behavior of the engine is a direct result of decreasing the temperature of the cold reservoir. The ice melted, so obviously heat was flowing to it. What remains is determining if that happened just because of the ambient environment. I suggested an experiment to determine this.

As part if this you have speculated, rather strenuously, that you think that no heat is rejected in a heat engine. That all of the heat is converted to work. But you haven’t measured any of these energies.

It’s not an independent variable. Not a state variable that, in principle, can be directly controlled in an experiment. Speak for yourself. You’re the only one who brings it up. Everyone else has shown they understand heat to be exactly as defined: energy being transferred owing to a temperature difference. Something that you’ve shown no indication of measuring, or any interest in measuring, even though it’s at the crux of the matter. How does the system “know” about this floor if no heat flows to it?

A problem with shooting an unguided projectile is ensuring you hit the balloon, and not they payload. It also means getting fairly close, and you have a large closing speed. Even if an F-22 could get to 66,000 feet and maneuver well*, it would need to fire and then veer off. * it can’t, according to https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/history/f-22.html They say ~10 miles, which is ~52,000 feet. But I would imagine the actual value is classified They are facing up, meaning the balloon would be blocking the sun to a large extent Unless you used the system to heat the batteries.

Room for expansion work, whatever you mean by that, is not a variable. The capacity for work increased, since it was zero and then it had some value. Who said anything about caloric? There’s more heat flow. Curious that it depends on the temperature difference. If there’s no heat flow, then the ice shouldn’t melt because of the hot water. Are you willing to make that argument? I’d say it’s running the wrong tests. You’re not running the tests that would falsify your conjecture.

The unit we use on our side of the pond is the Scaramucci According to this it’s the Giant Sunda Rat, as sethoflagos mentioned https://a-z-animals.com/blog/8-shortest-living-animals-in-the-world/ “In the wild, longevity averaged about half a year” http://www.genomics.senescence.info/species/entry.php?species=Sundamys_muelleri