A refrigerator needs a work input to run it, as it is a closed cycle engine that merely exports the heat it removes somewhere else, augmented by the extra heat into which the work input is converted. So refrigeration can’t produce Tesla’s “cold hole”: making the “hole” creates even more heat and costs energy to create.
So if, say, you run your Stirling engine with an ambient heat input and a cold sink created by refrigeration, the work your engine can do can’t be more than the work input (in the form of electricity) needed to run the refrigeration circuit. So the whole exercise is pointless. But we’ve been over that before.
Evaporation of water doesn’t suffer from this snag, but that’s because liquid water is consumed in the process, i.e. it’s not a closed cycle engine and does not need a work input to run it. So yes you can have a (rather feeble) “cold hole” from constant evaporation of a fluid, so long as you keep providing more fluid to “fuel” the process. That is thermodynamically OK, because of the constant entropy increase that occurs as the water evaporates.
You are wrong. (In my "opinion" of course).
Heat and work are "equivalent".
Evaporation requires a heat input. The H2O is not "consumed" that's ridiculous nonsense. It absorbs heat giving it more energy so the H2O molecules can escape from its attraction to other H2O molecules. It is not "consumed" it is liberated by the addition or consumption of energy. That consumption or absorption of energy is what results in cooling. The HEAT is used/consumed not the H2O molecules.
Refrigeration also does not REQUIRE "work" input
There are a number of refrigeration systems that operate on heat input exclusively. No energy input in the form of "work" required at all.
So this is false: "A refrigerator needs a work input to run it"
So your conclusions that follow, based on a false premise are not substantiated.
"it is a closed cycle engine that merely exports the heat it removes somewhere else"
False as well. A refrigerator is not an "engine". True a refrigerator, like a heat pump or air conditioner simply moves heat out of a "cold hole" or "ice box" to somewhere else. In contrast an "engine" is an energy converter. It transforms heat into mechanical motion.
"So refrigeration can’t produce Tesla’s “cold hole”: making the “hole” creates even more heat and costs energy to create"
False. Producing a "cold hole" is exactly what refrigerators are designed for.
Yes, true. "making the “hole” creates even more heat and costs energy to create"
But, all of that heat is moved, "someplace else" including the energy required to move it.
No reason that "someplace else" cannot be the Stirling engine.
As Tesla wrote:
Quote:
"We do not know of any such absolutely perfect process of heat-conversion, and consequently some heat will generally reach the low level,(...) 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,"
In other words, whatever heat requires removal from the "cold hole" by the heat pump can just be returned (moved) along with the energy required to move it, back over to the "hot" side of the Stirling engine to be converted or transformed from heat to mechanical "work" output.
So heat removed by the heat pump can produce the work required to remove additional heat.
"What is not converted in flowing down can just be raised up with its own energy,"
Brilliant.
So your argument falls apart.
How many more errors and misstatements do I need to point out. Your logic and reasoning is flawed.
Needless to say, I'm also skeptical, and have no desire to throw away time and money, so I'me proceeding slowly and methodically. Doing little experiments to establish the basic facts and principles.
I'm actually making every effort to prove Tesla wrong in some way, and prove the conventional science right.
So far, I've failed at both.
Every indication is that Tesla was right and the conventional science is in error.
My repeated experiments, carried out in many different ways, consistently fail to support the "Carnot efficiency limit" and also fail in disproving Tesla's insights.
The Carnot theory states I should find a lot of "waste heat",
Tesla suggested a heat engine could run without producing any waste heat, but no such engine was known at that time, but he said it was possible that a heat engine could, conceivably leave no heat left unconverted, and so no "waste heat"
My experiments show what Tesla predicted. A modern Stirling engine produces very little if any waste heat. Indications are, that on the contrary, even a model LTD (low temperature difference) Stirling engine may produce, by converting heat into work, a very slight cooling effect. Zero heat "rejected" at the "sink" or into the "cold hole".
