The term "2lot whore" wasn't invented for nothing.

Ya, you should have thought of that before you laid down with the ddw whore and caught a horrible disease that rotted your mind.

Keep it in the cart thread champ.
There's a good case to move all your "explanatory" posts into Alt-Science.

There is an even better case for moving the entire cart thread, especially your asinine posts, to Alt science because it is ALL bullshit and always has been.

And, Don't try to tell me what to do, "Champ"

Heinz are you at the age yet where you shit your pants a little bit when you get upset?

Heinz are you at the age yet where you shit your pants a little bit when you get upset?

No. I guess you will need to tell me about your own experience with that.

The description you gave has some of the standard earmarks of a perpetual motion scheme.  You're describing sub-systems which are powered by the heat engine, and that then allow the heat engine to work.  But I say we draw a box around the whole thing.  This machine would just sit there cooling down the ambient temperature and producing work.  But that violates the 2nd law.

True. If you close off an open system and try to make it a closed system (draw a box around it) it can't work.

A wind car wouldn't go faster than the wind inside a box either I don't suppose.

The term "2lot whore" wasn't invented for nothing.

Ya, you should have thought of that before you laid down with the ddw whore and caught a horrible disease that rotted your mind.

Keep it in the cart thread champ.
There's a good case to move all your "explanatory" posts into Alt-Science.

There is an even better case for moving the entire cart thread, especially your asinine posts, to Alt science because it is ALL bullshit and always has been.

And, Don't try to tell me what to do, "Champ"

IKYABWAI

The term "2lot whore" wasn't invented for nothing.

Ya, you should have thought of that before you laid down with the ddw whore and caught a horrible disease that rotted your mind.

Keep it in the cart thread champ.
There's a good case to move all your "explanatory" posts into Alt-Science.

There is an even better case for moving the entire cart thread, especially your asinine posts, to Alt science because it is ALL bullshit and always has been.

And, Don't try to tell me what to do, "Champ"

IKYABWAI

LOL...

A quick google search turned up a highly speculative article written by Tesla in 1900, wherein he stated that since Linde had succeeded in liquefying air, he though it would be possible to use the process to create a heat sink for a heat engine (I'm summarizing and paraphrasing heavily). I don't believe that Tesla understood how Linde was cooling the air, though, as you can't achieve a net gain of energy by refrigerating a heat sink to run a heat engine (that pesky 2nd law of thermodynamics), any more than you could do it by pumping water uphill to run a water turbine. I'm not sure if Tesla explored this idea any more thoroughly than the one article I found. The fact that it is from 1900 is somewhat encouraging, as Tesla hadn't gone completely off the deep end at that time. I would be highly skeptical of anything from Tesla much later than that. As he got older, the wacko part of his personality seemed to overwhelm the genius part.

Regarding the highlighted text above: First, I assume you are referring to this: http://www.unz.org/Pub/Century-1900jun-00175

I'm quite certain Tesla understood Linde's methods. He was certainly NOT proposing trying to "achieve a net gain of energy by refrigerating a heat sink to run a heat engine". He outlines his theory quite clearly in the section "A DEPARTURE PROM KNOWN METHODS--POSSIBILITY OF A "SELF-ACTING" ENGINE..."

He says: "Suppose that an extremely low temperature could be maintained by some process in a given space; the surrounding medium would then be compelled to give off heat, which could be converted into mechanical or other form of energy, and utilized... ...More than this, reasoning in the abstract, it would seem possible to cause a quick circulation of the medium, and thus draw the energy at a very rapid rate. "

and later: "Heat, like water, can perform work in flowing down,... But can we produce cold in a given portion of the space and cause the heat to flow in continually?..." 

and:

" ...by expending initially a certain amount of work to create a sink for the heat to flow in, a condition  enabling us to get any amount of energy without  further effort. this would be an ideal way of obtaining motive power.  We do not know of any such absolutely perfect process of heat-conversion, and consequently some heat will generally reach the low level,... and  a  gradual  and  slow filling of the latter will take place, necessitating continuous pumping out. But evidently there will be less to pump out than flows in, or, in other words, less energy will be needed to maintain the initial condition than is developed by the fall, and this is to say that some energy will be gained from the medium.  What is not converted in flowing down can just be raised up with its own energy, and what is converted is clear gain.  Thus the virtue of the principle I have discovered resides wholly in the conversion of the  energy on the downward flow."

Refrigerating a space was clearly a means to an end, the resulting cold space was not the source of heat/energy. Any heat getting into the "cold hole" would be only a nuisance not a source of energy.

"To create such a "sink," or "cold hole,"as we might say, in the medium, would be equivalent to producing in the lake a space either empty or filled with something much lighter than water. This we could do by placing in the lake a tank, and pumping all the water out of the latter. We know, then, that the water, if allowed to flow back into the tank, would, theoretically, be able to perform exactly the same amount of work which was used in pumping it out, but not a bit more.  Consequently nothing could be gained in this double operation of first raising the water and then letting it fall down.  This would mean that it is impossible to create such a sink in the medium.  But let us reflect a moment.  Heat, though  following certain general laws of mechanics, like a fluid, is not such; it is energy which may be converted into other forms of energy as it passes from a high to a low level...."

It was, of course, the heat flowing in, or attempting to flow in from OUTSIDE the cold space Tesla aimed to utilize. His reasoning was that this in-flowing heat could be intercepted and converted into another form of energy without filling the cold space as would water flowing into a tank.

Certainly this is a very dubious proposition and I'm not convinced it could work, but I think before we dismiss the idea offhand we should at least understand what the proposition is or was.

IMO Tesla may have been onto something as an abstract concept, but the means of carrying it out did not exist at the time.

A "heat engine" in those days meant essentially a steam engine.

Low Temperature Differential heat engines did not exist in those days so for Tesla, applying his insight meant condensing air into a liquid and boiling the air in a steam engine or other similar expansion engine or turbine with ambient heat.

There is some strong evidence IMO that this could actually work using the Lind method of Air Liquefaction.

Charles E. Tripler seems to have accomplished this. He reported in 1899 a "surplussage", in that he could manufacture 10 gallons of liquid air by boiling only 3 gallons of liquid air in his steam engine to drive his liquefaction apparatus.

http://www.unz.org/Pub/McClures-1899mar-00397

Also in 1899 H. Gaylord Wilshire lectured on how this was possible:

https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100581832

The trick was that the Lind method utilizes a water jacket to take away the heat of compressed air before it is expanded. This amounts to "Free Refrigeration" with cold water, the water generally taken from a nearby river or lake or whatever.

Sooo...

What cools lakes, rivers, streams?

Ultimately, this circles back to evaporative cooling.

Here we can see a simple Low Temperature Differential Stirling engine running on ambient heat using simple evaporative cooling as an on-the-fly heat sink. By "on-the-fly" I mean that this is not a "cold reservoir". The heat is being locked away in a "change of state" energy conversion as the water evaporates in real time. There is no pre-existing temperature difference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARD3ctp80ac

If such a simple heat engine can run by means of this sort of on-the-fly energy conversion, why not bump it up just a bit and say, put some fins on the flywheel to create some air movement which would speed the rate of evaporation, increase the temperature difference and perhaps boost the output a bit,... or would the additional drag from powering the fan offset any gain from the increased temperature difference?

It's a toss-up I suppose.

But if we can create an on-the-fly heat sink in one way, why not in some other way.

Here heat is converted from one form to another. From active heat on the surface of the engine to kinetic energy of escaping water molecules. Not of any real practical value I suppose but IMO this sort of suggests that Tesla's idea could work in principle.

If you close off an open system and try to make it a closed system (draw a box around it) it can't work.

I don't think you're getting my point.  ALL systems are closed systems to the extent that nothing ever leaves or enters our universe.  The trick is to draw the boundaries appropriately.  If the Tesla engine works in the way you describe, it should continue to work with its "cold reservoir" operating as part of the engine.  If not, you'll have to explain to me what communication the cold reservoir needs to have with the outside world.

A wind car wouldn't go faster than the wind inside a box either I don't suppose.

Sure it would - as long as there's wind in the box.

But can we produce cold in a given portion of the space and cause the heat to flow in continually?..." 

Yes.  But as the heat flows in the space warms up.  If we want to keep it cool we can pump that heat out.  And we'll never be able to extract more energy from the heat flowing in than we'll have to expend on pumping the heat back out.

Heinz are you at the age yet where you shit your pants a little bit when you get upset?

No. I guess you will need to tell me about your own experience with that.

Like you're like... "The cart can't work--!!!

"Oop."

But can we produce cold in a given portion of the space and cause the heat to flow in continually?..." 

Yes.  But as the heat flows in the space warms up.  If we want to keep it cool we can pump that heat out.  And we'll never be able to extract more energy from the heat flowing in than we'll have to expend on pumping the heat back out.

Tesla's whole argument revolves around explaining why that doesn't happen; why the inflowing heat does not have to be removed and why the "cold hole" does not fill up.

Did you read any of it?

Heat is energy that in being utilized by a heat engine is converted into something else. It is already gone. It exited the system as "work" or electricity.

If the heat were still there needing to be removed, that would be a violation of conservation of energy.

sterling engine transfers heat from hot to cold plates
putting a fan and a alcahol on the cold plate will not help with conserving energy since it takes energy to cool the alcahol to liquid again

beaming energy into space concept would be similar
https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/green-tech/solar/efficient-airconditioning-by-beaming-heat-into-space

but its only increasing its hot/cool differencial energy pools

Heat is energy that in being utilized by a heat engine is converted into something else. It is already gone. It exited the system as "work" or electricity.

If the heat were still there needing to be removed, that would be a violation of conservation of energy.

Unless you're proposing a new physical force (outside of electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear and gravity) then I think your, and Tesla's, reading is a bit off.  Same with some Thermodynamic items like Entropy.

In a physics sense there is no "heat", only energy levels.  The fact that you can use work to either add or subtract energy from a system is no big deal, but the net energy used as work is always greater than the net energy added/removed from a system (i.e Entropy exists).  You can approach, but never exceed unity in your system, Entropy must increase somewhere.

If you find a system where Entropy doesn't exist or is not increasing then you haven't accounted for all the factors.

I have a hard enough time reading Tesla's write-up since it's in this 19th century gobbledy-gook presentation style that I can't be arsed to simplify into known terms that have been discovered and elucidated over the past 150 years.  But his idea of Heat flowing to a cold hole perpetually seems from my reading to not include all the pertinent facts about the system he discusses.

You can take the idea of coupling your cold hole to space as a sink, but your energy account will then show an increase in entropy in space.  Plus, you have to define HOW this coupling is occurring and what the physical attributes are w.r.t. this coupling (heat flux, etc.).

Did you read any of it?

Yup - all of it. 

Let me ask you this...  why don't we have such engines?  Is it because of a government or big energy conspiracy?  Is it because no one since has been as smart as Tesla (or even as smart as those that believe Tesla was right)?

Heat is energy that in being utilized by a heat engine is converted into something else. It is already gone. It exited the system as "work" or electricity.

If the heat were still there needing to be removed, that would be a violation of conservation of energy.

Unless you're proposing a new physical force (outside of electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear and gravity) then I think your, and Tesla's, reading is a bit off.  Same with some Thermodynamic items like Entropy.

In a physics sense there is no "heat", only energy levels.  The fact that you can use work to either add or subtract energy from a system is no big deal, but the net energy used as work is always greater than the net energy added/removed from a system (i.e Entropy exists).  You can approach, but never exceed unity in your system, Entropy must increase somewhere.

If you find a system where Entropy doesn't exist or is not increasing then you haven't accounted for all the factors.

I have a hard enough time reading Tesla's write-up since it's in this 19th century gobbledy-gook presentation style that I can't be arsed to simplify into known terms that have been discovered and elucidated over the past 150 years.  But his idea of Heat flowing to a cold hole perpetually seems from my reading to not include all the pertinent facts about the system he discusses.

You can take the idea of coupling your cold hole to space as a sink, but your energy account will then show an increase in entropy in space.  Plus, you have to define HOW this coupling is occurring and what the physical attributes are w.r.t. this coupling (heat flux, etc.).

Certainly not. Tesla writes in broad grandiose abstractions and uses metaphors and illustrations that are difficult to follow. He assumes too much, writing as if everybody knows all about whatever subject he happens to touch upon and all that is implied therein. He trollops through various scientific arenas, gas liquefaction, refrigeration, energy conversion, heat engines, thermodynamics, etc. etc. as if everybody knows what he's talking about.

Just for example, he writes at one point: "This would be an inanimate engine which, to all evidence, would be cooling a portion of the medium below the temperature of the surrounding, and operating by the heat abstracted." (Here he just described the possibility of a thermopile reaching from the warmth of earth's atmosphere into the cold regions of outer space) "But was it not possible to realize a similar condition without necessarily going to a height?  Conceive, for the sake of illustration, [a cylindrical] enclosure T, as illustrated in diagram b, such that energy could not be transferred across it except through a channel or path O, and that, by some means or other, in this enclosure a medium were maintained which would have little energy, and that on the outer side of the same there would be the ordinary ambient medium with much energy.   Under these assumptions the energy would flow through the path O, as indicated by the arrow, and might then be converted on its passage into some other form of energy."

Here he is describing a heat engine in about the most simplistic and abstract way possible without specifically naming the type of engine or even the fact that he is talking about a heat engine at all. "by some means or another" forget about the actual working mechanisms involved.

Tesla was pretty much on top of all the latest scientific advances of his day, and conducting experiments and building new devices that put him years ahead of his time. This was a popular article for a magazine addressed to general audiences. He was not able to use specific technical scientific jargon in that forum.

On the other hand, we could possibly conclude that he said "by some means or another" because he was completely clueless in regard to how such things operated or even what to call them.

Personally I'm inclined to think that the failing is on the part of the reader considering the extent to which the modern world is dependent on his discoveries and inventions.

So, how does a heat engine work?

Why do you need a temperature difference?

How does a heat engine exploit random molecular motion (Heat) and bring order to that motion so as to be able to control it and direct it in such a way that usable energy might be extracted?

What methods have been employed to accomplish this?

What are the component parts of such a device? Could we improve it?

How many different types of heat engines are implied in that "by some means or another"?

How does a heat engine actually convert heat into work? How does a refrigeration system work? How could these two systems possibly be brought together in one mechanism?

It might take years of dedicated study and research to know exactly what is implied in those few flippant words: "by some means or another".

Personally, I for one do not want to underestimate the mans genius. On the other hand, maybe I give him too much credit. Who knows?

But the more I've studied heat engines and thermodynamics and the liquefaction of gases, and refrigeration systems and heat pumps and the like, the more evidence accumulates to suggest that Tesla may have been right after all.

His whole essay was written in direct contradiction of the the conclusions of some of the greatest thinkers of his day, the fathers of thermodynamics.

He wrote: "I read some statements from Carnot and Lord Kelvin (then Sir William Thomson) which meant virtually that it is impossible for an inanimate mechanism or self-acting machine to cool a portion of the medium below the temperature of the surrounding, and operate by the heat abstracted.  These statements interested me intensely. "

He then goes on to say in effect: "Hey wait a minute guys, you overlooked something. Yes it could very well be done thus and such"

Then he goes on to say: "This seemed to be contrary to the statements of Carnot and Lord Kelvin before referred to, but I concluded from the theory of the process that such a result could be attained."

He was not unfamiliar with the subject of thermodynamics. If he did not know the subject quite well, he could never have located the chinks in the armor.

OK, so he was a bit of a nut case who fell in love with a pigeon and sometimes believed he was receiving communications from aliens,... just the same I'm a bit reluctant to dismiss what he has to say without some kind of trial.

I'm inclined toward experimentation as a final proving ground and I can't find any record of any experiment based on Tesla's alleged earth shaking "discovery" which if true, pretty much puts the second law of thermodynamics in the toilet and opens the door to a whole new way of harnessing solar energy.

Did you read any of it?

Yup - all of it. 

Let me ask you this...  why don't we have such engines?  Is it because of a government or big energy conspiracy?  Is it because no one since has been as smart as Tesla (or even as smart as those that believe Tesla was right)?

I suppose people are generally reluctant to advertise their failures, but generally that is what scientists do. They conduct experiments to prove something wrong.

Tesla's idea is IMO readily "falsifiable", not simply by appeal to authority or so-called "Law".

Modern science, I think, has moved away from reliance on inviolable "Laws" and instead postulates theories, which can always be challenged.

A question that might be asked is why can't I find any record of any experiment proving Tesla was wrong? Why, whenever this discussion comes up, all anyone can do is cite the 2nd "LAW" of thermodynamics?

I've been banned from enough science forums to know that the whole subject of "perpetual motion" is largely Taboo. It's policy. It is the policy of the patent office to reject any such claim. There's no money in it. Only ostracism.

Why should anyone bother sinking R&D into something that, the scientific community has declared for 100+ years, is patently impossible?

Personally I'm inclined to think that the failing is on the part of the reader considering the extent to which the modern world is dependent on his discoveries and inventions.

So, how does a heat engine work?

Why do you need a temperature difference?

How does a heat engine exploit random molecular motion (Heat) and bring order to that motion so as to be able to control it and direct it in such a way that usable energy might be extracted?

What methods have been employed to accomplish this?

What are the component parts of such a device? Could we improve it?

How many different types of heat engines are implied in that "by some means or another"?

How does a heat engine actually convert heat into work? How does a refrigeration system work? How could these two systems possibly be brought together in one mechanism?

These are pretty mundane questions to put to such a "maverick" inventor.
Probably the key question is "what medium is used to transfer cold to heat and heat to cold".  The list of refrigerants and their physical properties is used as a fundamental design basis for most designed systems because it sets the boundaries of how the system can perform.

Now, you can go with OTHER systems like coupling to space, or using lasers to slow the molecules down which uses OTHER forces of nature to accomplish a similar task.  I'm not sure the efficiencies involved, but it certainly looks cool to use polarized light to cool a substance to within a couple degrees of absolute zero.

But even with these alternatives there is no violation of the 2ndLaw.  Entropy exists, and MUST exist.  From that statement, and the following discoveries of famous physicists, Tesla would not only have to overturn the writings of Carnot and Lord Kelvin but also Rutherford, Einstein, Bohr and others since all of THEIR experiments relied upon similar frameworks.

It might take years of dedicated study and research to know exactly what is implied in those few flippant words: "by some means or another".

Personally, I for one do not want to underestimate the mans genius. On the other hand, maybe I give him too much credit. Who knows?

Too much credit is my hypothesis at the moment.  Tesla may have had an epiphany about heating and cooling, but without any follow-up or detail to his thought the solution may already have passed him by in the century that has passed.

But the more I've studied heat engines and thermodynamics and the liquefaction of gases, and refrigeration systems and heat pumps and the like, the more evidence accumulates to suggest that Tesla may have been right after all.

How?  Please elucidate how YOU recognize a 2LoT violation.  Please be specific.

His whole essay was written in direct contradiction of the the conclusions of some of the greatest thinkers of his day, the fathers of thermodynamics.

He wrote: "I read some statements from Carnot and Lord Kelvin (then Sir William Thomson) which meant virtually that it is impossible for an inanimate mechanism or self-acting machine to cool a portion of the medium below the temperature of the surrounding, and operate by the heat abstracted.  These statements interested me intensely. "

He then goes on to say in effect: "Hey wait a minute guys, you overlooked something. Yes it could very well be done thus and such"

Then he goes on to say: "This seemed to be contrary to the statements of Carnot and Lord Kelvin before referred to, but I concluded from the theory of the process that such a result could be attained."

He was not unfamiliar with the subject of thermodynamics. If he did not know the subject quite well, he could never have located the chinks in the armor.

The fact that Tesla didn't continue with his pursuit is also a tell that after much humming/hawing he may have derived the solution to his issue.

OK, so he was a bit of a nut case who fell in love with a pigeon and sometimes believed he was receiving communications from aliens,... just the same I'm a bit reluctant to dismiss what he has to say without some kind of trial.

I'm inclined toward experimentation as a final proving ground and I can't find any record of any experiment based on Tesla's alleged earth shaking "discovery" which if true, pretty much puts the second law of thermodynamics in the toilet and opens the door to a whole new way of harnessing solar energy.

Again, where in the electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear or gravity are you going to discover your solution?  Or do you propose a 5th force?

Throwing a "Law" of physics into the toilet is pretty proud words for someone who doesn't have enough information available yet to make a hypothesis statement of the issue.

Personally I'm inclined to think that the failing is on the part of the reader considering the extent to which the modern world is dependent on his discoveries and inventions.

So, how does a heat engine work?

Why do you need a temperature difference?

How does a heat engine exploit random molecular motion (Heat) and bring order to that motion so as to be able to control it and direct it in such a way that usable energy might be extracted?

What methods have been employed to accomplish this?

What are the component parts of such a device? Could we improve it?

How many different types of heat engines are implied in that "by some means or another"?

How does a heat engine actually convert heat into work? How does a refrigeration system work? How could these two systems possibly be brought together in one mechanism?

These are pretty mundane questions to put to such a "maverick" inventor.
Probably the key question is "what medium is used to transfer cold to heat and heat to cold".  The list of refrigerants and their physical properties is used as a fundamental design basis for most designed systems because it sets the boundaries of how the system can perform.

Now, you can go with OTHER systems like coupling to space, or using lasers to slow the molecules down which uses OTHER forces of nature to accomplish a similar task.  I'm not sure the efficiencies involved, but it certainly looks cool to use polarized light to cool a substance to within a couple degrees of absolute zero.

But even with these alternatives there is no violation of the 2ndLaw.  Entropy exists, and MUST exist.  From that statement, and the following discoveries of famous physicists, Tesla would not only have to overturn the writings of Carnot and Lord Kelvin but also Rutherford, Einstein, Bohr and others since all of THEIR experiments relied upon similar frameworks.

It might take years of dedicated study and research to know exactly what is implied in those few flippant words: "by some means or another".

Personally, I for one do not want to underestimate the mans genius. On the other hand, maybe I give him too much credit. Who knows?

Too much credit is my hypothesis at the moment.  Tesla may have had an epiphany about heating and cooling, but without any follow-up or detail to his thought the solution may already have passed him by in the century that has passed.

But the more I've studied heat engines and thermodynamics and the liquefaction of gases, and refrigeration systems and heat pumps and the like, the more evidence accumulates to suggest that Tesla may have been right after all.

How?  Please elucidate how YOU recognize a 2LoT violation.  Please be specific.

His whole essay was written in direct contradiction of the the conclusions of some of the greatest thinkers of his day, the fathers of thermodynamics.

He wrote: "I read some statements from Carnot and Lord Kelvin (then Sir William Thomson) which meant virtually that it is impossible for an inanimate mechanism or self-acting machine to cool a portion of the medium below the temperature of the surrounding, and operate by the heat abstracted.  These statements interested me intensely. "

He then goes on to say in effect: "Hey wait a minute guys, you overlooked something. Yes it could very well be done thus and such"

Then he goes on to say: "This seemed to be contrary to the statements of Carnot and Lord Kelvin before referred to, but I concluded from the theory of the process that such a result could be attained."

He was not unfamiliar with the subject of thermodynamics. If he did not know the subject quite well, he could never have located the chinks in the armor.

The fact that Tesla didn't continue with his pursuit is also a tell that after much humming/hawing he may have derived the solution to his issue.

OK, so he was a bit of a nut case who fell in love with a pigeon and sometimes believed he was receiving communications from aliens,... just the same I'm a bit reluctant to dismiss what he has to say without some kind of trial.

I'm inclined toward experimentation as a final proving ground and I can't find any record of any experiment based on Tesla's alleged earth shaking "discovery" which if true, pretty much puts the second law of thermodynamics in the toilet and opens the door to a whole new way of harnessing solar energy.

Again, where in the electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear or gravity are you going to discover your solution?  Or do you propose a 5th force?

Throwing a "Law" of physics into the toilet is pretty proud words for someone who doesn't have enough information available yet to make a hypothesis statement of the issue.

Maybe we could start out by considering a heat engine that has been sold by the millions, costs about $10 looks like a "self acting" engine and not only powers itself with ambient heat and keeps running but can also do a bit of mechanical work output and produce small amounts of electricity.

Seriously. Does this self acting engine conform with Tesla's broad specifications?

Is it "perpetual motion"?

Does it violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

I'd say, yes, no and no.

It doesn't violate the second law as it is an open system. The 2nd law doesn't apply.

It isn't perpetual motion because it can't work inside a box.

On the otherhand it does appear to violate the 2nd law in some of it's formulations.

It is a heat engine powered by ambient heat where there is no pre-existing temperature difference.

It is a combined heat engine and fluidine refrigeration system activated by ambient heat.

How does everyone else vote?

https://youtu.be/Rq3K6Ma0wIU

I'd say it does require a pre-existing temperature difference to begin motion.  With all parts at a uniform temperature, the active fluid and vapor inside the (clever) vessel are in equilibrium.  The head needs to be cooled to start the cycle, which will continue as long as heat is available for the body and the head can recover a bit of water in contact to cool the head by evaporation.

Haha, the video!  "I don't know how it works, but this is the solution to the world's energy problems.  Send me one million dollars to help with this."

I'd say it does require a pre-existing temperature difference to begin motion.  With all parts at a uniform temperature, the active fluid and vapor inside the (clever) vessel are in equilibrium.  The head needs to be cooled to start the cycle, which will continue as long as heat is available for the body and the head can recover a bit of water in contact to cool the head by evaporation.

Haha, the video!  "I don't know how it works, but this is the solution to the world's energy problems.  Send me one million dollars to help with this."

Depends what you accept as ""pre-existing". Experimentally it works nearly just as well with warm or even hot (above ambient) water in the glass. But it does have to cool down by evaporative cooling between dunks.

I just meant, with the head dry, it won't start working.  You'd have to wet the head.  I agree that you could wet it with hot water, and no motion would take place, until evaporation cooled the water and the head bulb below the temperature of the body.

Tesla's idea is IMO readily "falsifiable", not simply by appeal to authority or so-called "Law".

How exactly would you falsify his idea?  Simply failing to make such an engine a million different ways wouldn't do it.  Perhaps you're just not doing it quite right.  As far as "appeal to authority" you appear to be completely failing to see my point.  My title is Chief Scientist.  You need not warn me of such logical fallacies.

Why, whenever this discussion comes up, all anyone can do is cite the 2nd "LAW" of thermodynamics?

The second law of thermodynamics has proved so far to be extremely compelling.  Even if we don't know why it works this way, we observe that so far it *always* does.  Thus the null hypothesis at this point is that the 2nd law likely holds.  The extraordinary claim is that there's some fancy way to get around it.  So given that Tesla isn't around anymore, the burden is on you to prove that case.  When I claimed it was possible to make a vehicle that goes directly downwind faster than the wind I can assure you that nearly EVERYONE (including professors of aero and physics) told me I was a nutcase.  The burden of proof it would appear was on me.  So I built a vehicle and demonstrated it.  I'm not asking that you do any more than I did.

I've been banned from enough science forums to know that the whole subject of "perpetual motion" is largely Taboo. It's policy.

I can assure you that you won't be banned here for your views on perpetual motion.  In fact I don't know that there's anything you could ever do or say to get banned from Talkrational.  Don't worry about taboo or policy.  Just make your case.

It is the policy of the patent office to reject any such claim. There's no money in it. Only ostracism.

Not true.  I have dozens of patents.  I could file a patent for a perpetual motion machine if  I choose.  However, this is a special case.  To have my application reviewed I would have to provide a working model - as should be the case since a patent must disclose an invention to such detail that it could be built by anyone practiced in the art.  And since NO ONE is practiced in the art of perpetual motion it's up to the applicant to demonstrate.

Why should anyone bother sinking R&D into something that, the scientific community has declared for 100+ years, is patently impossible?

To prove them wrong and get filthy rich.  You can be absolutely certain I'd do it if I believed it.  But so far I have seen NO evidence that suggests it's possible.

And by the way, talking to birds wasn't the extent of Tesla's kookery in his later years.  He proposed things that were provably bullshit, and by all accounts did so in some cases dishonestly.

Tesla's idea is IMO readily "falsifiable", not simply by appeal to authority or so-called "Law".

How exactly would you falsify his idea?

Lots of ways. I think it would be a relatively simple matter, IF he was wrong.

#1) he states that heat (at least not all of it) does not pass through a heat engine and into a cold reservoir but that it is intercepted and converted into some other form of energy. Therefore there is no heat (or at least less heat) to remove from the "cold hole" than goes into the engine.

That whole idea is in direct contradiction of early formulations of the 2nd law that say that all the heat passes through a heat engine.

Who's right. Tesla or Carnot?

We could certainly do many experiments to prove that all the heat does pass through. That would falsify Tesla's theory. Just run any off the shelf stirling engine and measure the heat input and output.

But we don't really need to bother do we because the second law advocates ended up eating crow and had to change their tune and come up with a new formulation of the second law so as to account for the fact that indeed, not all the heat passes through the heat engine. At least some portion of the heat is converted into work.

How much?

Well, that depends. It varies. How efficient is the heat engine. How hot is the hot reservoir, all kinds of hemming and hawing and even, well, get things cold enough and at absolute zero, yes theoretically, you could have a 100% efficient engine that converted ALL the heat that entered it into work.

That means a perfect heat engine running on hot air would eject cold air devoid of all heat at a temperature of absolute zero.

Perfect nonsense.

What it all boils down to is Tesla was right on that particular count. Not all the heat ends up in the cold reservoir. This is already known. Yes, as Tesla claimed, a Truly "perfect" heat engine would not deliver any heat to the cold hole. Fact is, a "perfect" heat engine according to current thermodynamics reckoning would not only not heat up the cold hole it would refrigerate it down to absolute zero. I think it is important to understand what is meant when someone says there is no such thing as a perfect heat engine.

We don't need a "perfect" or 100% efficient heat engine. If there was one it would collapse into a point of Bose-Einstein Condensate if you ran it for any length of time.

Fix your quotes if you're hoping for any of us to try and figure out what you're trying to say.