studiot

+1

The point is, "Did you understand it ?"

A further though occurred, The Earth has two fluid environments air, and water. Ther are plenty of free floating plants on/in the water environment, so the idea of a travelling plant is not silly. But the air is much thinner so perhaps only the free floating microorganisms that are plants are possible. Perhaps the biology specialists will advise further.

Did it ?

The results of the New Horizons spacecraft serious suggest that Pluto may be tectonic. It certainly shows vulcanicity - always remembering that the main rock there is ice, not granite.

How does that address my point right at the beginning of my post immediately above your answer ? I also asked you a serious and important question which you did indeed ignore which was designed to help create a simple block diagram to show where you need to concentrate your efforts and why what you are currently doing will not achieve your stated aims. An ideal reservoir is an object that does not change in temperature however much heat is added to it or extracted from it. This is true for both hot and cold reservoirs. But as swansont says they are imaginary ideals. If the if the heat transfer causes a change in temperature it (dramatically) changes the thermodynamics of the system. There are two ways around this in practical reality. One is the very difficult way you are attempting. The other is to find an object with very large heat content compared to the amount of heat transfer. But you did not answer my question as noted above. Verbal sparring with swansont is in my opinion what in the UK we call a 'hiding to nothing'. I think I have only known him being wrong once since I have been a member.

I already noted that is isn't 100%, but that in general 'science does it's best. Good viewpoint. +1 Agreed, the media has widened its scope. Agreed, I think by everybody here. This still misses my main scientific point, although I admit I made it in the same sensationalist manner as the article and rather hoped other technical people would pick up on it rather better than they have.

I presume the waves are surface waves. In general these do not disturb water very deeply. So I would suggest trying a horizontal perforated or cellular plate at or just below, the water surface. Suitable sized and spaced holes would act as resonant absorbers of the waves without causing changes to the flow regime or pressures beneath as the water would 'pump' up and down through the holes. The plate thickness would need to be similar in size to the observed wave heights.

I agree that playing around with ice water / electric heaters / and other devices opens too many cans of worms for satisfactory simple experimentation. You need to arrange both reservoirs so that the heat transferred through the fluid is les than 1% - preferably less than0.1% - of the heat content ofeach reservoir. Do you understand the difference between specific heat (also called heat capacity) and heat content ? For instance using the ocean or a lake etc as the cold reservoir would be really good. Stirling in his original devices used a blast furnace as the hot reservoir.

Since your reply to me was so disrespectful I will simply say here is a good animation of the correct logical thinking I have been promoting and leave you to figure the rest out for yourself. https://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlight/light-clocks-time-dilation/

OK a few more questions. Are you viewing from the top or the sides (or both) ? You plate idea (as a top plate on the surface) is a likely fix is you don't need top viewing, make it removable for acees though. The test length seems exceedingly short, almost certainly too short for the convergent and divergent orifices effects to be smoothed out. Depending upon the type of pump you are in danger of introducing vertical axis vortices in the outlet, with the diagrammed arrangement. By 'particle' do you mean fluid element or suspended matter. Are you interested in sedimentation rates or differential sedimentation rates .

Thank you that will give us something to work on.

No. Please read my point number 1 again. It specifically refers to the article presented by the OP. Why do do think I made it No. 1 ? Let us discuss what that article actually stated. I cannot divine what the authors may have meant to say, only what they did say. Furthermore I expect, though I am not cetain, that that article will have undergone some sort of peer review process, given its source.

A lot of different possible 'experiments' have been suggested and you have rushed off once or twice to start on some. I seriously suggest you do some collecting and collating before starting any more and plan a course of action. Otherwise you will be doing a lot of tail chasing and probably unneccessary work.

I.m not arguing anything at the moment. I am trying to keep my posts short, especially as you keep avoifing the pertinent questions I ask in each one. In response to your question I am not arguing anything I am seeking factual information about the numbers you are claiming. It is quite insulting that you only bother to reply after I remind you twice this last time.

Yo, Moon that looks interesting. +1 Where I live we grow a lot of 'withies' . There are traditional willow slips before they get to tree status and are still bendy. We are now somewhat famous for the Willow Cathedral, which is constructed by intertwining bendy willow in the manner you describe. I must try to look out a picture.

Pity, just when I though we starting to get on well.

A small spanner here. A large part of a living tree is dead. If the outer layers of the tree remain intact, the heartwood will not decay, even though it is dead and retired sapwood. Some believe heartwood must be the most important part of the tree due to the fact that it is called “heart”. However, the name just refers to the central position of the heartwood in the tree. 27 Sept 2019

If so then why did you not quote the entire passage I posted when you made the strange sarky comment as a 'question' ? The entire passage was predicated entirely upon placing an incontestible accident of fact in antithesis to what we have been asked to judge as being excessive political correctness. Or perhaps the originators of the paper, speaking American English, would have failed an exam set in English English and I did not understand their use of the three letter word all. So perhaps you would be kind enough to explain it to me so I don't get it wrong in the future and tar all americans with the brush of misunderstanding.

Well well well, I pause to have lunch and go to Tescos and you have stopped talking to me again.

I thought so. You said you are an engine mechanic - a very respectable trade I know such people who have many innate skils I don't possess. They find it easy to for instance dissemble, fix and reassemble aBorg-Warner auto box whilst I know from personal experience of much simpler mechanics that I would struggle for days and probably not succeed with a B-W. However you anser brings us to appreciating the difference between power and energy. I have assumed you know this. Total energy (you have a total energy meter ?) used to keep the waterbath temperature constant for 15 minutes. Do you think 15 minutes is enough ? I don't. So over a longer period you can measure the energy to maintain that waterbath temperature. So what ? How do you know what proportion of that input actually goes into the working fluid ? And over that time how many cycles has you engine completed ?

Thank you, but that wasn't what I asked you. I asked you how you measure this supposed energy input to the working fluid. Not guesswork thank you.

Thank you, but how do you know ? You can't just pick an arbitrary figure out of the air and say I will put in 500kJ of energy. You are constrained by the characteristics of the system. You can measure and adjust temperature, pressure, and perhaps volume. You then need to calculate the energy (and entropy) interchanges from the 'observerables'. Talking of energy you said I posted the PV diagrams. Yes But I also posted the TS diagrams which are of great use to engineers and I use to answer the question "What is Entropy ?" The area of a PV diagram gives you energy and entropy was introduced originally to answer the question "We need a variable to go with temperature (an observable) in the same manner to also help us calculate energy. Plots of such varaible pairs are called 'indicator diagrams'.

Now that you are talking to me again, please remind me how you arrive at this figure of 500kJ supplied and what is it supplied to ? You do realise that the figure should only include energy added to the working fluid, nothing else ? Is this 500kJ over one cycle or what ?

We need more information. A sketch would be useful. You say a water tunnel. Is it running full ? If so what happens at the divergent section ?