Origin and verification of e=(Th-Tc)/Th

What his method of debate is:

1, Ask a difficult question.
2, Dismissal of it's politely given answer.
3, Post a belief that his observation and experiments are 'proof' that the laws and science of thermodynamics is wrong.
4, Demand proof that Tom is wrong.
5, Dismiss that mathematical proof.
6, Post an immense amount of strawman filler obfuscating any possibility of cleanly replying.
7, Name calling when people start laughing at him.

I've seen that over and over in his postings.

Tommy, the sippy bird is powered by low humidity and atmospheric processes, like sun and rain that regulates that humidity. Technically it's powered by the temperature difference between sunshine and deep space cold. Not like Tesla's description at all.

Furthermore it demonstrates the second law perfectly. It won't start bobbing until heat is rejected from its head.

Evaporative cooling is an open system heat removal by mass flowing away from the liquid water from the conversion to gas. Each molecule taking its energy with it. It stops if humidity gets too high.

Try closing the system with a glass dome.

As far as us running experiments for you. It is not us that has any problems with classical physics. Your banter and denial powered by your limited experience and poor lab practices is what needs improvement. They are misleading you severely. We've all been educated and learned how to do better science. Classic science is backed by mathematical theory and lots of empirical data, and lots of students challenging and experimenting for 200 years. Your banter is baseless.

Your work has been peer reviewed and has been found to be lacking key data. We suggest to you refrain from publishing. Get more data, not more of the same data. This is out of the kindness of our hearts. Or as my highschool shop teacher used to say, "Okay. It your funeral". He was speaking figuratively about the grades we'd be getting. Eff's... We have no need to point out your fallacies. We don't benefit in anyway from correcting you, except having a more knowledgeable public, one person at a time. Enjoy the help even though it is just constructive criticism. We are only attempting to point out the proper way to use the physics of classical thermodynamics. Many many people make simple errors trying to learn it. Good luck.


.
 
ExChemist, I agree. I wouldn't have paid any attention to that photo, until Tom made his foolish comments and names. If he's going to get help from people he needs to learn to be kind. He's here obviously wanting help, it can't be out of his desire to prove himself, can it?

I've dealt with people like that several times. If you banter back to them, they will banter back magnified several times over. For most people banter is fun and means you are loved, and you love them. They don't get that and banter back viciously. They take the play, as if it is an excuse to break all the rules, and become extremely vicious. Some, nicer people, take the playful banter undesirably and ignore it. They may inform you of their detesting it. Helps a lot when they do. The only cure for any of them is to speak kindly to them when they fly off the handle from a simple misunderstanding.

Usually verbally when I hear someone talking about technical things incorrectly I just let them talk, maybe injecting a question here and there.

Tom posts his technical errors in the public and dares people to correct him and gets mean when others do so. I've seen posters leave from Tom's meanness and stubbornness. He seems to have the owner, administrator, moderator backing his fraudulent ideas and meanness on the Stirling Forum. He's threatened me being banned there. It will be a loss to their forum if they do. I'm not that bad. I've only been kind, and point out his meanness. I'm hoping the owner sees through the base as to where the real trouble is I don't want him banned, just would like some rational support from the owner. I think the owner is not a scientist, physicist, or engineer, but I don't know.

ExChemist, your tinfoil (aluminum foil) hat picture reminded me of an Ignoice mine detector. Plug your ears and tap your foot all around. Goggles won't help, nor the hat. LOL (Ignoice, a person whom is ignorant by choice. We are all ignorant by choice. LOL)

Sorry, I ramble.
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
That's not the flex you think it is.
Click to expand...
No, he's actually a psychotic stalker from hell. What kind of loony follows someone all over the internet from site to site like he follows me? Nothing better to do with his time than track a tin foil hat "free energy nut" from forum to forum? If I'm crazy, what does that make him?

Anyway, it's all a distraction because he can't answer the simple question. Because his accusation is a lie and he actually has no answer so who is "devolving into name calling'?


Can someone else answer?

I'm accused of not measuring Qh or Qc? The heat input and heat output?

Resize_20240805_082842_2726.jpg


Who's got blinders on?

Just assuming for one moment that the above readings ARE accurate: how does current theory explain the temperature inside that engine, under "super insulation" (silica aerogel blanket) being a few degrees BELOW the ambient surroundings.

That is an actual temperature reading. You can try and poke holes in it all you like. Ignore it, dismiss it, explain it away, but to say that I haven't taken readings and measurements is a lie, and "fool" is a documented habitual liar in this instance as well as others.
 
readings.gif

Those little green and red squares move around on the thermal video recording camera's view screen to pinpoint the hottest "Max" and coldest "Min" temperatures.

The bottom "inside" (under the aerogel insulation) temperature of the engine is hotter than "everything else".

The top "inside" (under the insulation) is indicated to be the coldest point, colder than "everything else", including the ambient surroundings recorded at about 65°F.

These are not transient readings but were sustained as the engine ran over the course of about 3 hours.

"Fool" can't explain this, so he tracks me around the internet posting his lies that I haven't taken any readings rather than respond to a simple question.

How do you propose measuring "heat" other than through temperature readings?

Exchemist has made the same accusation and has also failed to respond.

His own reference from Wikipedia tells us...

It can be calculated from the temperature readings.

Do you know of another way?

Crickets.
 
Last edited:
“When a hypothesis no longer suffices to explain phenomena, it should be abandoned"
- Sadi Carnot
Carnot wrote that in regard to his own theories in his unpublished journals almost immediately after the publication of his book.

"The fact that Carnot published no other work during his short life led later theoreticians, notably Rudolf Clausius and James Clerk Maxwell, into the error of assuming that Carnot never questioned the validity of the caloric theory. But after Carnot’s death in 1834, a bundle of his papers was found whose contents reveal that he had not only questioned the caloric hypothesis, but had reached the point where he felt compelled to abandon it"

carnotcycle.wordpress.com

Carnot’s Dilemma

The milestone memoir Réflexions sur la Puissance Motrice du Feu (Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire), published by French engineer Sadi Carnot in 1824, marks the starting point of thermodynami…
carnotcycle.wordpress.com carnotcycle.wordpress.com
 
"If you are trying to insulate the cold end, the presumption must be that its temperature is not the ambient temperature of the room but significantly higher. If the insulation is perfect, then what will happen is that the waste heat rejected by the engine will progressively raise its temperature, eventually reaching that of the input temperature. As this takes place, the engine will run progressively slower and eventually stop.
What is for sure is that for the cold end heat exchanger to reject heat into the room, its temperature must be quite a lot higher than the ambient temperature. Recall Newton's law of cooling, according to which the rate of heat transfer is proportional to the temperature difference. So, no temperature difference, no heat transfer." - exchemist

www.scienceforums.net

Is Carnot efficiency valid?

I've done nearly everything possible I can think of to block the "flow" of heat out of a Stirling engine, with the idea that if the "heat rejection" could be blocked, the engine would quickly overheat and stop running, or be unable to start running in the first place. To that end, I recently sent...
www.scienceforums.net www.scienceforums.net

The insulation is perhaps not "perfect". Regardless, the current "Carnot" heat rejection theories cannot explain a temperature REDUCTION below ambient, while a heat engine is sitting on top of and operating for hours on scalding hot water.
 
Now he's calling me a liar in this forum. How is quoting classical thermodynamics a lie?

One of these days, he might just learn the difference between temperature and heat flow. He then might place his probes in correct positions to calculate heat flow.

It is impossible to make a heat flow calculation from a cold plate at 27 C and no other info. Even knowing the temperature of the room doesn't give accurate flow values. Calibration is a big factor too, as is stability and stillness of holding the measurement tools.

I've had enough of those poor undocumented videos of home cooked, thermo camera waving around, demonstrations. If you want anyone to take you seriously get some of the data requested. Improve the camera work. And specifically tell us wattage supplied and output powered measured.

Use them to verify your zero heat rejected claim. I think you will have over 70 Watts of missing energy from your 80 Watt supply. Where it's going will become apparent once you discover the amount.

Build us a Tesla cold hole device as in your video. You said it was from currently available devices. Let's see it. Stop the pointless banter. I encourage you to try. Please.
 
Alleged temperature drop is currently just an anomaly for you to track down. It is not necessarily a valid measurement. You've had at least one that had a temperature rise. Don't dismiss that.
 
Tom Booth said:
View attachment 6055

Those little green and red squares move around on the thermal video recording camera's view screen to pinpoint the hottest "Max" and coldest "Min" temperatures.

The bottom "inside" (under the aerogel insulation) temperature of the engine is hotter than "everything else".

The top "inside" (under the insulation) is indicated to be the coldest point, colder than "everything else", including the ambient surroundings recorded at about 65°F.

These are not transient readings but were sustained as the engine ran over the course of about 3 hours.

"Fool" can't explain this, so he tracks me around the internet posting his lies that I haven't taken any readings rather than respond to a simple question.

How do you propose measuring "heat" other than through temperature readings?

Exchemist has made the same accusation and has also failed to respond.

His own reference from Wikipedia tells us...

It can be calculated from the temperature readings.

Do you know of another way?

Crickets.
Click to expand...
This is the behaviour that has got you banned from the other forums, Tom. You ask a question, ignore the answer, ask the question again in a slightly different form, and when you get no response (because it has already been addressed) you claim nobody has an answer, so you must be right.

Nobody said measuring heat flow rate was easy. In fact I warned you, in post 30, that calorimetry is difficult. Adequate insulation is notoriously extremely hard to achieve.

But it is a fact that I had to ask you 3 times (post 39, 41, 43) how you were measuring heat input and work and heat output and only finally, in post 44, you reluctantly admitted you were not measuring heat flow in or work output. That's the simple truth, not a lie.

The only measurement you have attempted is temperature change at the cold sink. That of course is not a measure of heat flow rate. You would need to determine the heat capacity of a very carefully constructed and efficiently insulated cold sink and then measure temperature change at intervals, to allow an estimate of how much heat was flowing into it. Or you could use ice, again very carefully insulated, and measure the difference in the amount of melting you get over a set period of time, and use the Latent Heat of Fusion to estimate the extra heat flow when the engine is running. There may be other ways, too but there are 2 ideas for you. There is no evidence you have done any of this, or even given it any thought. In fact, your demanding to know how to do it shows you have not attempted it. Again then, it is the simple truth, and not a lie, that you have not measured heat flow rate out either.

So how you work out that Fool is lying about you I cannot fathom.

I have given you my guesstimate of the work output and from that suggested an order of magnitude for the heat flow in and out. You simply ignored that. A serious scientific investigator would have come back with some alternative estimate or at least commented on my figures. You did neither. Instead, in post 46, you attempted to swerve the issue by suddenly claiming the thread was not about your experiments.

You have no answer to what my figures suggest: that the expected heat output to the cold sink will be too small to detect as a temperature rise. So you try to hide from this issue by squirting out a squid-ink cloud of side issues and personal accusations.

I was amused to see that Fool also, quite independently, made an estimate of the work your engine is doing, which is even smaller than mine!

You are not going to be taken seriously until you face up to this basic issue of the heat flow from your engine, running as it is with no load, being too tiny for your temperature measurement to pick up.
 
Last edited:
exchemist said:
... you attempted to swerve the issue by suddenly claiming the thread was not about your experiments.

You have no answer to what my figures suggest: that the expected heat output to the cold sink will be too small to detect as a temperature rise.
Click to expand...
The thread isn't about my experiments, it's about past experiments performed by others to validate the Carnot efficiency limit calculated values for any engine, ever. Read the title and intro. It is not about MY theories or experiments at all, but you paparazzi will talk of nothing else.

Why don't you address that issue, the apparent complete lack of testing or experimental verification for the Carnot limit so-called "LAW"?

Your conclusion that boiling water will conduct zero measurable heat in the course of three hours across the space of 3/4's of an inch with a displacer circulating the air up and down inside the engine, (aside from the measurements indicating an actual COOLING), without SOMETHING unusual going on is just outright irrational.

After that length of time, (or much less infact), the heat would be coming through 3/4" of solid Styrofoam insulation or anything else, without some form of active refrigeration.

The weekend is nearly over. How are your heat-driven heat pump studies coming along?
 
Tom Booth said:
The thread isn't about my experiments, it's about past experiments performed by others to validate the Carnot efficiency limit calculated values for any engine, ever. Read the title and intro. It is not about MY theories or experiments at all, but you paparazzi will talk of nothing else.

Why don't you address that issue, the apparent complete lack of testing or experimental verification for the Carnot limit so-called "LAW"?

Your conclusion that boiling water will conduct zero measurable heat in the course of three hours across the space of 3/4's of an inch with a displacer circulating the air up and down inside the engine, (aside from the measurements indicating an actual COOLING), without SOMETHING unusual going on is just outright irrational.

After that length of time, (or much less infact), the heat would be coming through 3/4" of solid Styrofoam insulation or anything else, without some form of active refrigeration.

The weekend is nearly over. How are your heat-driven heat pump studies coming along?
Click to expand...
Hahaha.

Deal with the issue, Mr Squid.

Your repeated attempts to avoid it are telling us all something.
 
exchemist said:
Hahaha.

Deal with the issue, Mr Squid.

Your repeated attempts to avoid it are telling us all something.
Click to expand...
What issue?

My first post on the physics forum was:

"If possible I would like to see others perform the experiment to see if they get similar results."

Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...o-melt-when-used-to-run-a-heat-engine.991714/

That's a tacit acknowledgement that one person's, any one person's, casual, kitchen table experiments are inadequate for establishing anything. I thought my results were interesting and might be of some interest to others.

Now that we have established that my experiments alone are inadequate, why don't you go ahead and answer the question I came here for?

What else do we have?

What other tests or experiments have been performed? That is the title of the thread and the subject of the thread.

I could really care less if you don't like my experiments or take them "serious". I'm not looking for your opinions or evaluations, I'm just checking to see if, by chance, anyone might happen to have any additional historic or current information on the subject of how the so-called "Carnot" efficiency formula calculations were experimentally verified to be accurate for all ∆T's and all engines as generally claimed, or ONE engine at ANY ∆T for that matter.

I would be particularly interested in any such tests involving Stirling external combustion engines, of course

What was the date? Who performed these experiments? When and by whom were such experiments replicated by others? We're any corrections made? How can these experiments be replicated today?

These are simple. Basic questions one might expect from any scientific claim or principle.

If you and "fool" don't know of anything, please let someone else respond.

If you want to talk about Tom Booth's kitchen table experiments with his model Stirling engines you can start your own thread about that, why are you insistent on derailing this one?

I'm very open and willing to hear what anyone has to say on the subject for which this thread was started:

Origin and verification of e=(Th-Tc)/Th​


I appreciate your help in regard to the Clausius inequality lead, but the rest, about me and my experiments and their relative value or adequacy is irrelevant.

I'd like to know; what else do we have?

If there is nothing, then I can simply go back to minding my own business and doing my own experiments at my own pace, (or not), as I see fit.
 
Tom Booth said:
What issue?

My first post on the physics forum was:

"If possible I would like to see others perform the experiment to see if they get similar results."

Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...o-melt-when-used-to-run-a-heat-engine.991714/

That's a tacit acknowledgement that one person's, any one person's, casual, kitchen table experiments are inadequate for establishing anything. I thought my results were interesting and might be of some interest to others.

Now that we have established that my experiments alone are inadequate, why don't you go ahead and answer the question I came here for?

What else do we have?

What other tests or experiments have been performed? That is the title of the thread and the subject of the thread.

I could really care less if you don't like my experiments or take them "serious". I'm not looking for your opinions or evaluations, I'm just checking to see if, by chance, anyone might happen to have any additional historic or current information on the subject of how the so-called "Carnot" efficiency formula calculations were experimentally verified to be accurate for all ∆T's and all engines as generally claimed, or ONE engine at ANY ∆T for that matter.

I would be particularly interested in any such tests involving Stirling external combustion engines, of course

What was the date? Who performed these experiments? When and by whom were such experiments replicated by others? We're any corrections made? How can these experiments be replicated today?

These are simple. Basic questions one might expect from any scientific claim or principle.

If you and "fool" don't know of anything, please let someone else respond.

If you want to talk about Tom Booth's kitchen table experiments with his model Stirling engines you can start your own thread about that, why are you insistent on derailing this one?

I'm very open and willing to hear what anyone has to say on the subject for which this thread was started:

Origin and verification of e=(Th-Tc)/Th​


I appreciate your help in regard to the Clausius inequality lead, but the rest, about me and my experiments and their relative value or adequacy is irrelevant.

I'd like to know; what else do we have?

If there is nothing, then I can simply go back to minding my own business and doing my own experiments at my own pace, (or not), as I see fit.
Click to expand...
Hahaha, the deliberate obtuseness card, eh, Tom?

The issue is of course, as you are well aware, the issue described in post 114, the last line of which I quote:

"You are not going to be taken seriously until you face up to this basic issue of the heat flow from your engine, running as it is with no load, being too tiny for your temperature measurement to pick up."

Time to address this, Tom, if you want to retain any credibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top