Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TR: This is why Jon has you on ignore.

Recent Posts

2
Science / Re: Tesla's heat engine (split from DDWFTTW)
Last post by Tom Booth -
Also
https://youtu.be/3HpVDTEHCYc

Just as a kind of thought experiment. After all the discussion about ammonia refrigeration.

The bird is a heat engine that derives its energy by the use of evaporative cooling.

An ammonia refrigerator cools by evaporating ammonia in a continuous cycle.

So why can a heat engine (the bird) operate by evaporation of water on a toy but it is supposed to be theoretically impossible to run a heat engine on the cold produced by evaporating ammonia, and have the combined heat-engine-refrigerator power itself with ambient heat.

Is it that the bird is so much more efficient? Is it because the bird is an open cycle? because it uses up a drop or two of water?

In principle I would think the ammonia refrigerator would be more efficient than the bird.

I've participated in many forums where someone, usually not me, started a thread about bootstrapping a heat pump with a heat engine in some way shape or form. What I haven't come across is anyone ever following through and putting together such a device.

So how can we be so sure it wouldn't work?

Of course to make a beginning of it, one would need to have a thorough understanding of how a refrigerator works first of all and an understanding of how a heat engine works second of all. The two things, IMO are not the same thing working in reverse at all except perhaps in the most abstract sense. One converts heat into work and the other converts work into heat, but that isn't really true either.

A heat pump does not convert work into heat. It uses work to MOVE heat. The energy expended is used to TRANSPORT heat not create it.

A heat engine on the other hand actually converts heat energy directly into another form of energy. It doesn't move heat in a reverse direction from one reservoir to another it destroys heat energy and re-creates it as something entirely different.

To me this is as different as expending work or energy carrying gasoline in a can from one place to another as opposed to actually putting the gas in an engine and using it to drive an automobile.

Tom, for real, if you think the principle is sound, make one! It really doesn't require that much money or technology to do prototyping like this. It takes a shop with minimal fabrication tools. Mostly it would be a screwdriver, wrenches and a vise. You can find components to adapt and a local machine shop can make most any little thing you need for less than a couple hundred bucks.

This is the deal with what spork did. He was convinced the principle was sound and built models to test the concept. It worked so well they built the blackbird. Now everyone but cranks knows it works. The original little carts weren't complicated to any extreme degree.

Your idea might take a little bit of precision welding which you could get done at a local auto body shop or machine shop if you don't know how to do it yourself. But the point is, it is within the realm of the possible. All it takes is a little initiative. If you can't be motivated to do it yourself, it's still an interesting discussion I guess but the conventional wisdom is king until it's overturned or you can clearly point out both the flaw in the conventional way to model the system and a model which doesn't suffer that flaw. And even at that point, all you've got is a hypothesis that passes the immediate dismissal test. You still need to demonstrate your application to say whether or not it works in any definitive way.

And Stirling engines are cool as shit, so if that's what you are basically getting at you'll be doing something that's cool as shit and who doesn't want to do something that's cool as shit?

https://www.stirlingengine.com/

I tell you what though, the physics of compressed gasses aren't intuitive so if you plan on using adiabatic expansion, you are on your own. .

One other thing... you started: "Tom, for real, if you think the principle is sound, make one!"

That is part of the problem of course. Is the principle sound?

I've spent years debating the issue on various forums like this.

I don't know.

There is evidence on both sides like, certainly I would think that with universities and government agencies and lots and lots of very smart people around the world including theoretical physicists and scientists of very high caliber NASA  engineers etc, working on this sort of thing, they would know, and the blanket response from so many is that it just cannot work. It defies the known laws of physics and this has been known and resolved for more than a hundred years so don't waste time reinventing the wheel etc. etc. etc.

But then I keep finding more and more evidence accumulating on the other side that, well, maybe it is possible because...

There are known exceptions to the general rules under certain circumstances, or, the rules don't necessarily apply to the case or...

For me one of the biggest reasons for perusing this is that the science involved is so counter-intuitive and so difficult to understand, and so few people, if any, actually understand it all fully and there has been such a preponderance of open discouragement leveled towards anyone who meddles in the area, it seems to me, for what reason I'm not entirely sure, but what it boils down to is I see, for whatever reason, an almost complete vacuum in terms of empirical evidence one way or the other. There has been no experimentation in this area. At least none published that I've been able to find.

Really, why should I even attempt to build an engine and experiment with it if it has all been done before and the answers are already known and recorded and published somewhere.

Much of the information having to do with refrigeration technologies is, unfortunately proprietary, or "trade secrets" which the various companies involved don't care to make public in order to avoid competition. Something as simple as the best length to make a condenser coil could have cost some company millions in R&D and they aren't inclined to give this kind of detailed information away. That sort of thing has frustrated my research at times.

But as I say, the fact that we don't have any such thing already tends to suggest it probably isn't possible and therefore probably isn't worth bothering with, so I've been reluctant to sink a whole lot of time and money into it, but at this point I feel like the debate has gone on long enough and in order to really settle the question I guess I'm actually gonna have to set aside some time and build the damn thing myself, or nobody else is going to.

I'm sure there are many people with more free time and resources than I have, but for some reason it doesn't seem like anyone in the position to do so has any inclination to involve themselves with it.

One of the biggest deterrents I've come across is that there actually are A LOT of people who are afraid they would be killed. That there is actually a international conspiracy to prevent this sort of technology from surfacing. That if you go public with an actual working engine you and your prototype will suddenly "disappear", due to "national security" reasons or some such thing, and there are certainly actual laws on the books to suggest that might be what actually has happened in some cases where the technology has some potential military application.

So, I don't think I'm particularly any more paranoid than anyone else but if I do build this engine and it works and then I suddenly "disappear" I hope somebody notices and tries to pick up where I left off.

But with so many reported alleged cases of such vanishings, who would dare?

At any rate, I want to document my progress as much as possible as I go along for all of the above reasons. 1) Someone please stop me  if it has already been done. I have no desire to waste my time. 2) To benefit the world which is in serious need of an alternative energy source before we destroy ourselves 3) To assure the information on the subject is not suppressed to the extent it is within my power to do that. in the event that it is or has been suppressed at any time by anyone. What else?

Well, I might get some good advice or ideas about one thing or another. for example someone on the Stirling Engine forums posted a suggestion for a gearing system which was right up my ally.

For this engine it might be necessary or desirable to convert rotational motion to reciprocating motion.

I might very well incorporate this idea:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMSlK5nH6HA


http://stirlingengineforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1949&p=8712#p8712

Imagine the above steam engine operating in reverse, sort of, so that you have a Stirling engine where it's rotational force is converted to reciprocating force to drive a cylindrical air compressor. It might look quite similar to this steam engine but working in reverse sort of.
3
No, DL. I truly believe it is a bad idea to follow personalities. I read very widely and have since I learned to read. Most of the people you refer to are men, and ime, most of them have at least some beliefs that collide with mine.

Can you link me to something written? I can't currently watch videos and don't like them much anyway.

Apologies, I cannot do better than your own use of google.

Bill does have transcripts though. This site does not work well for me but might be ok for your system.

www.hiddenmeanings.com

Regards
DL




I can use the site. It is terribly organised and every third or fourth thing you look at is a beggar's bowl asking for monetary support

What attracts you to this person's views? I haven't looked at a lot of it, but it appears to be a collection of New Age truisms and photos cadged from all over the internet. Much of it is very trite, and some of it sounds distressingly like the material used by Divine Light Mission (afterwards Elan Vital), an exploitive Indian cult that swept North America and Britain in the 70s. What am I missing, that you see?

His esoteric views and how he interprets scriptures from that esoteric and allegorical POV.

Not all of them but most of the ones that I have seen him speak about on you tube. A pity you cannot view those.

Regards
DL
4
Gnostics are worse than filthy muslims. Take my advice, don't trust them alone with children and don't hire them as valet car parkers.

Thanks for showing us your ignorance of Gnostic Christianity.

Regards
DL
5
"Lots of ancient people ate grains.  Therefore grain production was easy."

Yes, in terms of calories produced per unit of human labour.

If grain-based food was the staple diet, then it means that grain-based food was the cheapest food.  And the cheapest food is the food that costs the least in terms of availability and human labour.

"Lots of Mexicans work on vegetable farms picking vegetables. Therefore picking vegetables is easy work."

You really can't do analogies, can you?  Try:

"Lots of Mexicans EAT vegetables.  Therefore those vegetables must be produced with very cheap labour costs".
Neither follows necessarily.

Not absolutely necessarily.  They also need to be abundant and not cost a lot in land rent. 

But the POINT, Dave, is that for a food to be a staple, it has to be cheap. And the three big things that make it cheap are: labour costs; abundance; amount of land it takes to produce.  You could also add in fuel costs, so we'll add in the oxen fodder as well.

BREAD and BARLEY were the staple foods in ancient mesopotamia.  That means that BARLEY must have been CHEAP.  So those costs must have been low.  And the slavery thing doesn't explain it because even if you don't pay your slaves, you still have to feed them, or they won't be able to work.

6
Dave, imagine two mini environments A and B

In A, which gets lots of rain, but is quite cold, yiggles grow very abundantly, and harvesting them gives you 10 calories for every 1 calorie you spend growing them.  Nugs also grow, but they need a lot of work, and have to be sown under glass, then transplanted.  They take about 2 calories of human labour for every calorie they yield.  But they are delicious, and full of important nutrients.

In B, Nugs grow almost without help, and all you have to do is harvest them.  They yield about 20 calories for every calorie you spend on them.  But yiggles really don't do well at all - it's too dry for them, and you need to water them every day.  They yield about 2 calories for every calorie you spend growing them.

In one environment yiggles are the staple food.  In the other, food are.

Are yugs the staple food in A or B?
Are niggles the staple food in A or B?

Why?
is this a koan? or perhaps a variation on the grue-bleen paradox?
7
"Lots of ancient people ate grains.  Therefore grain production was easy."

Yes, in terms of calories produced per unit of human labour.

If grain-based food was the staple diet, then it means that grain-based food was the cheapest food.  And the cheapest food is the food that costs the least in terms of availability and human labour.

"Lots of Mexicans work on vegetable farms picking vegetables. Therefore picking vegetables is easy work."

You really can't do analogies, can you?  Try:

"Lots of Mexicans EAT vegetables.  Therefore those vegetables must be produced with very cheap labour costs".
Neither follows necessarily.
8
Dave, imagine two mini environments A and B

In A, which gets lots of rain, but is quite cold, yiggles grow very abundantly, and harvesting them gives you 10 calories for every 1 calorie you spend growing them.  Nugs also grow, but they need a lot of work, and have to be sown under glass, then transplanted.  They take about 2 calories of human labour for every calorie they yield.  But they are delicious, and full of important nutrients.

In B, Nugs grow almost without help, and all you have to do is harvest them.  They yield about 20 calories for every calorie you spend on them.  But yiggles really don't do well at all - it's too dry for them, and you need to water them every day.  They yield about 2 calories for every calorie you spend growing them.

In one environment yiggles are the staple food.  In the other, food are.

Are yugs the staple food in A or B?
Are niggles the staple food in A or B?

Why?
9
Sithrak? Is that another name for Crom?
10
"Lots of ancient people ate grains.  Therefore grain production was easy."

"Lots of Mexicans work on vegetable farms picking vegetables. Therefore picking vegetables is easy work."
Oh, btw, jesus fucking christ you're an idiot Dave.