Is practically possible to concentrate atmospheric heat continuously and use this energy to power engines (eg Stirling engine) outputing either electrical or kinetic energy and cooled air or water. If it is theoretically possible (which some quick research or thought seems to confirm) then why is it not being used as the ultimate best use of solar energy (it is renewable and unaffected by shade)?

The energy that you would get out of the system is the same energy that you must put in to accomplish the compression. Since it has losses, you would have to put in more energy than you would get out.

It's easier to rub two sticks together.

Consider this (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/realestate/30habi.html):

The temperature dipped deeper into the teens that frigid morning, but the Roglers' 3,300-square-foot house was toasty, and the doctors explained why. Geothermal heating systems pipe fluid deep into the ground and back again. The thermal energy found there is enough to heat a house in winter and cool it in summer - and it also heats the family's water. (Electricity powers the system, so they're still on the grid, they said.) It cost slightly more to install than a traditional oil system, they said, but it doesn't use oil. Last month, it cost about $15 a day to run. Both doctors were home to show it off - Albert Einstein, where they work in parallel laboratories, is a 50-minute drive away.

The energy that you would get out of the system is the same energy that you must put in to accomplish the compression. Since it has losses, you would have to put in more energy than you would get out.

It's easier to rub two sticks together.

Your response is invalid. Heat Pump technology is routine and successful. That is there is a factor in Heat Pumps called COP (Coefficient of Performance). COP is a measure of energy required to operate vs the the energy output.

Heat Pumps actually have negative entrophy. That is you get more energy out than you put in. A typical COP is around 3.0 but higher ones can be had at greatly increased cost.

The proplem is on investigation is that COP is the recipocal of Carnot Efficiency. That is the theoretical maximum energy output of an engine vs the absolute temperature differential it operates at.

In the real world you cannot even get as much out of a sterling engine as the heat pump puts in even with the COP of 3.0 because at that temperature an engine would have a Carnot Efficiency "Maximum" of 33.3333% and in reality you would actually get less than this break even number.

So in the overall view you are correct but not at the compression level. At that level you get 3 times the heat energy out as was consumed transferring the heat.

So for a system that is purely used to provide heat(transfer heat), the energy output is approx. 3 times the energy input to the system?

I assume then that the Carnot efficiency is different to a simple efficiency (of 60-70% for stirling engines). (I'm unfamiliar with it. Know any good sites?)

(To all friends : ) Do you know , heat is with matter , mass , heavy and inertia ? You might think I was insane . Then , I ask you , Do you know the alluminun alloy of working jet head may be melt by the air ? One satellite experiment in old days told us it seems there is not heat through land earth from hotter center of the earth to the colder surface of the earth . You might doubt this words . We might understand it from another phenomenon that there is not heat gathering just under desert . I ask you a question more , Why is there a universal phenomenon that the center of a planet is always hotter than its surface ? You might have thought of the general relativity for these these questions , however the theory can't answer all these questions well !

So for a system that is purely used to provide heat(transfer heat), the energy output is approx. 3 times the energy input to the system?

I assume then that the Carnot efficiency is different to a simple efficiency (of 60-70% for stirling engines). (I'm unfamiliar with it. Know any good sites?)

http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/java/carnot/carnot.html

Note that Carnot Efficiency (The theoretical Maximum output for Thermal Energy Input is based on Eff = (1 - Tc/Th) Where temperature is based on Absolute F (Degrees Rankine). The higher the temperature difference the higher the efficiency.

http://www.aie.org.au/melb/material/resource/cop.htm

Note that COP is a function where the Higher COP is a function of decreasing temperature differential. That is the chart shows a COP of 6.1 but it is at a substantially reduce delta T such that the ability to produce work from the heat transferred is reduced by the Carnot Efficiency.

1, Without recourse to heat engines would cantilevered floats placed in some high wave location on the ocean be capable of generating electricity when connecting the opposite end of the cantilever to a generator?

2. What about massive concrete rollers, with flat projections along the length of the rollers, aligned orthogonal to the direction of the flow of the Mississippi River" The rollers drive generators on the shoreline. This seems like a virtual pollution free energy source. A few fish may get disoriented when moving near the rollers, but if signs are posted the fish can be warned of the potential danger. Certainly no tree hugger problem here is there?

The best design would have the bottom half of the rollers below the river bed (or otherwise protected against the river flow) to decrease the resistance (increase the efficiency) of the rollers due to water pushing against the upper and lower projections at the same time. One could even divert the water (some of it) that would normally push on the lower projections onto the upper projections for added turning power.

Why do damn dams, when no dam will do?

Geistkiesel

1, Without recourse to heat engines would cantilevered floats placed in some high wave location on the ocean be capable of generating electricity when connecting the opposite end of the cantilever to a generator?

2. What about massive concrete rollers, with flat projections along the length of the rollers, aligned orthogonal to the direction of the flow of the Mississippi River" The rollers drive generators on the shoreline. This seems like a virtual pollution free energy source. A few fish may get disoriented when moving near the rollers, but if signs are posted the fish can be warned of the potential danger. Certainly no tree hugger problem here is there?

The best design would have the bottom half of the rollers below the river bed (or otherwise protected against the river flow) to decrease the resistance (increase the efficiency) of the rollers due to water pushing against the upper and lower projections at the same time. One could even divert the water (some of it) that would normally push on the lower projections onto the upper projections for added turning power.

Why do damn dams, when no dam will do?

Geistkiesel

Both of these are physical possibilities. Indeed one of my many inventions was a large platform frame with a cylindrical tank in the center for living and navigation controls, that was surrounded on the perimeter by large floatation tanks mounted horizontally and attached so as to bob in the waves driving a piston compressing air into a centeral collection tank which then drove a turbine to produce electricity for propulsion and utility of an independant domicile at sea.

You would need to like a high protien diet (fish) and either collect sufficient rain water or distill water to remain independant. :D

There are a couple of draw backs in reality however with placing roller in the mississippi.

1 - The limited power available compared to power needs.

2 - Seasonal changes in water level and flow.

3 - commercial barge traffic, etc.

Both of these are physical possibilities. Indeed one of my many inventions was a large platform frame with a cylindrical tank in the center for living and navigation controls, that was surrounded on the perimeter by large floatation tanks mounted horizontally and attached so as to bob in the waves driving a piston compressing air into a centeral collection tank which then drove a turbine to produce electricity for propulsion and utility of an independant domicile at sea.

You would need to like a high protien diet (fish) and either collect sufficient rain water or distill water to remain independant. :D

There are a couple of draw backs in reality however with placing roller in the mississippi.

1 - The limited power available compared to power needs.

2 - Seasonal changes in water level and flow.

3 - commercial barge traffic, etc.

The river is big ergo it cam absorb many rollers. (concrete is cheap, low tech, eternal). The rollers are always under water; a trench can be dredged if necessary..
Comercial traiffic is above water. Maintain the rollers away from traffic, like a parallel protected "canal". running next to the river.

How about 50ft x 5ft dia with seel rod center, or 50 ft long with 2-3 support notches along length. Slow turning roller ganged together than turn any sized generator at any design spec rotational rate. Think of 3-4 miles of rollers dispersed along the river. All power needs at least growth needs from now, can be (shopuld be)installed, probably cheaper and certainly cleaner than any fuel fired generation system. Underwater maintenance would be minimal as system is sufficient to define the words, "simple energy generation system".

Problems:1. No high tech razz-a-ma-tazz.
2. Tresspassing on fueled system industry which seems to have a monopolistic strangle hold on energy generation - well as long as the "Near East" remains in our firm and protective hands - would probably take some serious defensive action far above just praying for relief.
3. The lack of pollution negates public relations value - the story is too drab without some potentially almost gone forever, rare and cute fish, to protect. (this fish story was originally intended as a joke, but I changed my mind, I really mean it!).
4. The source of energy is infinite, for all person living now and the expected tp be living in the next few hundred years, or as long as there is a Missisippi River and soem one to keep the Jerome Kern (sic) song {Dat 'Ol Man Ribber} alive.

Geistkiesel

MacM wrote:

Your response is invalid. Heat Pump technology is routine and successful. That is there is a factor in Heat Pumps called COP (Coefficient of Performance). COP is a measure of energy required to operate vs the the energy output.

Heat Pumps actually have negative entrophy. That is you get more energy out than you put in. A typical COP is around 3.0 but higher ones can be had at greatly increased cost.


What?!?! Huh?!?!? Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! Are there any laws of nature that are valid in your world?

What?!?! Huh?!?!? Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! Are there any laws of nature that are valid in your world?

Unfortunately you stand corrected. You should not only know your own limitations of knowledge but anticipate that others may know more than yourself in some areas.

A heat pump with a COP of 3.0 means if it takes 1 Hp to operate (that converts to 0.707 BTU/Sec/Hp) that the heat pump will transfer 7,635.6 BTU/Hr.

Whereas the consumed energy by the input motor is 2,545.2 BTU's/Hr.

Output = 7,635.6 BTU/Hr
Input = 2,545.2 BTU/Hr

Ratio = Out/In = 7,635.6/2,545.2 = 3.0 = COP = 3 times the energy out as put in.

Let me suggest you not be so adamate in areas which you are unfamiliar.

This does not howver, lead to perpetual motion in that as pointed out the higher the COP the lower the differential temperature and the Carnot efficiency or ability to extract mechanical work is in accordance to (1 - Tc/Th)

Tc is Temperature Cold

Th is Temperature Hot

and where temperatures are in absolute degrees F or degrees Rankine.

which is results in a decreased conversion efficency of the transfered heat energy so that PM remains impossible.

But energy has different forms. In the case of Heat Pumps they in fact operate over unity and that is expressed by the term COP.

Check some literature before you assume to know more again.

http://energyoutlet.com/res/heatpump/efficiency.html

You need only to convert the electrical input into BTU's to find what I have said is absolutely true.

Conversions:

1 BTU/Minute in units of:
-------------------
Foot-Pounds/Minute = 778.0 = 12.9666 Ft - #/Sec: (Note one Hp = 550 Ft-#/Sec or 778 BTU's/min = 12.9666/550 = 0.02357Hp. 1/0.02356 = 42.41 and 42.41/60 = 0.70694 or 0.707 BTU's/sec/Hp.

Watts = 17.58. One Hp = 746 watts/sec. 746/17.58 = 42.4345 and 42.4345/60 = 0.707!


******************** Extract *************************
http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumerinfo/factsheets/pool_heatpumps.html
Just like other heating options, heat pumps can have low efficiencies or high efficiencies. Their COP can range from 3.0-7.0. The higher the number the more efficient the heat pump. What this means is that for every unit of electricity that you put in to run the compressor, you get 3-7 units of heat out of the heat pump. These COPs are usually determined by testing the unit with an outdoor temperature of 80ºF and a pool temperature of 80ºF. But there is no standard test, so you should be aware of this. The higher efficiency units usually use scroll compressors versus the reciprocal compressors of the standard units.
************************************************** ******

Simply said the work of compression in heat energy terms is less than the amount of heat energy compressed for use as heating (not mechanical conversion output) and is expressed as a Coefficient of Performance. A COP of 3.0 is the same as saying it operates over unity by a ratio of 3.0.

You cover yourself nicely. Your statement:

"That is you get more energy out than you put in."

Is wrong in any context. Your statement violates the first law of thermodynamics in anybodys book, no matter how you reword to cover yourself. I apparently know more fundamental physics than you do.

BTW, don't bother writing paragraphs to make yourself feel better. Defend your simpleminded statement "That is you get more energy out than you put in." in terms of actual energy, or shut up.

You cover yourself nicely. Your statement:

"That is you get more energy out than you put in."

Is wrong in any context. Your statement violates the first law of thermodynamics in anybodys book, no matter how you reword to cover yourself. I apparently know more fundamental physics than you do.

Don't kid yourself. Respond to the mathematical facts please.

Energy in is less than energy out. PERIOD. You are wrong and fail to grasp simple facts. Heat pumps do not violate anything but they operate over unity.

BTW, don't bother writing paragraphs to make yourself feel better. Defend your simpleminded statement "That is you get more energy out than you put in." in terms of actual energy, or shut up.

BTW: I don't need to make myself feel better. I know what I know because I am educated in that area where you have openly admitted you are not.

My "simple minded statements" are fully consistant with the text of the official links on the issue I posted. You don't have to believe me it is your perogative to be ignorant but before attacking me you best also claim to know more than the official sites which also say the output is larger than the input.

Telling me to "put up or shut up" is childish and only confirms you can't read and follow simple mathematics.

NOTE: You are also lucky indeed that this by internet, in person I would correct your attitude very quickly.

Now back to the issue.

You have a heat jpump. It consumes 1 Hp of electrical energy. It has a COP of 3.0. What are the following in common BTU enery terms:?

Input_________

Output________

Lets see yu answer this and retain your attitude.

They do not, and you are totally wrong. "Over Unity" A nice buzz word for perpetual motion, free energy, etc. Please show me a website that unambiguously states that a heat pump "gets more energy out than you put in." or that they operate "Over Unity".

NOTE: Up yours MacM.

MacM:

If I build an amplifier, I can say it has a gain of 10. Iput 1Vpp in and get 10Vpp out. Amazing! It has a "COP" of 10! However, "more energy out than in" is rediculous. This is why I classify your statement as simpleminded. You seem to be missing the energy contribution of the temperature differential across the heat pump (the power supply in the amplifier example). Just considering the COP as indicating "more energy out than in" is simpleminded and inplies thermodynamic violations. Heat pumps work according well known thermodynamic principles, and stating "more energy out than in" is wrong.

Output = 7,636.4 BTU/Hr
Input = 2,545.4 BTU/Hr

So what?

See my previous response.

So, where does the difference in power (these are not units of energy) come from so that we don't violate the first law? It's somewhere, right?

They do not, and you are totally wrong. "Over Unity" A nice buzz word for perpetual motion, free energy, etc. Please show me a website that unambiguously states that a heat pump "gets more energy out than you put in." or that they operate "Over Unity".

I believe I have already twice indicated why it is not and cannot become pertptual motion.

The fact that you either cannot or choose not to read is your problem not mine.

From my above link: "In the heat pump industry, this is described as a COP (Coefficient of Performance) of 3. COP is the ratio of heat output, to electrical energy input

NOTE: Up yours MacM.

This doesn't bode well for you.

MacM wrote"

NOTE: You are also lucky indeed that this by internet, in person I would correct your attitude very quickly.

Nor for you.

MacM:

If I build an amplifier, I can say it has a gain of 10. Iput 1Vpp in and get 10Vpp out. Amazing! It has a "COP" of 10! However, "more energy out than in" is rediculous. This is why I classify your statement as simpleminded. You seem to be missing the energy contribution of the temperature differential across the heat pump (the power supply in the amplifier example). Just considering the COP as indicating "more energy out than in" is simpleminded and inplies thermodynamic violations. Heat pumps work according well known thermodynamic principles, and stating "more energy out than in" is wrong.

Before you bury yourself in another mud hole let me advise you of this. From my Historical Document Photo Album.

http://groups.msn.com/McCoinUniKEFTheory/groupphotos.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=55

I of 7 pages of schematics for a unique computer system I designed and patented. Once again you are on my turf.

Now as to your assertion that 1V in and 10V out in an amplifier is a COP of 10. It is not necessarily so. You will find that if at 1 V in you have 1 Amp, you have energy in watts = 1. At your V = 10 You might have only 0.1 amp out and still be at 1 watt or a COP of 1. You can however control a power source and get more output than input which could be viewed as a COP. But you are not violating anything are you. The power is being regulated not created.

Same with a heat pump. It violates nothing. You are manipulating the heat already inherent in the air to put more of it in your home. It is very much like the amplifier you give as an example and neither violate anything or suggest perpetual motion.

If you are going to heat your house with oil or gas it requires a certain amount of BTU to do so. A heat pump puts those BTU's in your house but does so using less BTU's of energy. That is more output than input. Simple. Inargueable fact.

So, where does the difference in power (these are not units of energy) come from so that we don't violate the first law? It's somewhere, right?

At least you are asking questions and not making assinine false statements.

BTW: Q/t is power. Q = BTU's Energy, T = Time.

BTU's/sec
BTU's/min or
BTU's/hr is power

Nor for you.

HeHe. I have formed and operated Research Corporations and I have fired cocky engineers. When I was done with him he did not get his unemployment. The State of Texas agreed with my firing. It takes far less to fire a smart ass janitor.

Ok MacM. First, I have two patents pending. It's not so impressive.

Second,


MacM:
Same with a heat pump. It violates nothing. You are manipulating the heat already inherent in the air to put more of it in your home. It is very much like the amplifier you give as an example and neither violate anything or suggest perpetual motion.

This sounds like something I would have said. I completely agree with this statement. I think we have a semantic disagreement. Try this:

A heat pump with a COP of 3 moves heat into your house such that the heat moved, in BTU/hr, is 3 times greater than the amount of electrical power used to move it.

The heat pump however does not generate more energy than is put in. Taken as a whole, the electrical input energy, combined with the energy contained in the temperature differential of the air, will always be greater than the energy output of the device, in accordance with thermodynamic laws.

Yes?

MacM:
HeHe. I have formed and operated Research Corporations and I have fired cocky engineers. When I was done with him he did not get his unemployment. The State of Texas agreed with my firing. It takes far less to fire a smart ass janitor.

So, for being "cocky" you fired him, and denied him unemployment, thus forcing him to find whatever employment was available at the time, making his life miserable...How generous of you.

I don't think I would like working for you. I have never been fired and have been valued and well respected in all of my jobs, but I have quit due to "cocky" managers, who are still floundering in their own incompetence.

Ok MacM. First, I have two patents pending. It's not so impressive.

I am assuming your patents are probably laser oriented. That is a good sign for you. Best of luck with them.

Second,

This sounds like something I would have said. I completely agree with this statement. I think we have a semantic disagreement. Try this:

A heat pump with a COP of 3 moves heat into your house such that the heat moved, in BTU/hr, is 3 times greater than the amount of electrical power used to move it.

The heat pump however does not generate more energy than is put in. Taken as a whole, the electrical input energy, combined with the energy contained in the temperature differential of the air, will always be greater than the energy output of the device, in accordance with thermodynamic laws.

Yes?

Absolutely. Now you are talking sense. Note however that the ratio of input to the heat pump and the output of the heat pump is over unity in that specific definition.

So, for being "cocky" you fired him, and denied him unemployment, thus forcing him to find whatever employment was available at the time, making his life miserable...How generous of you.

I don't think I would like working for you. I have never been fired and have been valued and well respected in all of my jobs, but I have quit due to "cocky" managers, who are still floundering in their own incompetence.

HeHe. Maybe that didn't come across the way it was. No he wasn't fired for being cocky. He attempted to circumvent a $1M contract away from one of my clients by claiming he could do a better job.

I took offense to that. The client provided me a copy of his letter.

Well, MacM, that's not cocky. That's sounds almost criminal. May he burn in engineering hell, with 50W resistors, in each orifice, running at 100W...

Just a general note. I find so many arguments on this and other forums are generated by misunderstandings of phrasing and definitions of terms. I'm not sure I can take it much longer...Too...frustrating :( .

Just a general note. I find so many arguments on this and other forums are generated by misunderstandings of phrasing and definitions of terms. I'm not sure I can take it much longer...Too...frustrating :( .

Just relax. You see after almost getting into name calling we actually agreed. :D

I have never been fired and have been valued and well respected in all of my jobs, but I have quit due to "cocky" managers, who are still floundering in their own incompetence.

I have to agree with those sentiments as well. However, I have always had excellent working relationships with my employees (except in this one case where he attempted to steal - not paper and pencils either). We had daily meetings on the project and I presented what I wanted to accomplish and my general view on how to proceed and then took suggestions from the engineers.

More times than not I would adapt their suggestions but not always. Sometimes cost simply had to be paramount to efficiency, etc.

Just a general note. I find so many arguments on this and other forums are generated by misunderstandings of phrasing and definitions of terms. I'm not sure I can take it much longer...Too...frustrating :( .
Superluminal,
With regard to he Flat Earth that you brought up in a previous post your laser expertise may be put to good use. I suggested that the earth could not be measured other than flat. Even laser beams that might possible be deflected to the earth surface proves nothing even following the "bent" beam around the earth.

Remember i said no earth based measuring system could prove the roundness. For myself I believe the earth is round, or at least is of the general shape as a prolate shperoid. Belief however, belongs to the dscipline of religious (and scientific) zealotry and proves nohing.

It would strain the best of scientific methodology to prove the non-exitence or falsity of the claim of UFO abuctions. Scoffing isn't proof certainly, nor is a litany of arguements suggesting alternative reasons for the claims. I challenge you not on this issue and will not debate the matter unless in one post you can provide what you calim is an unambiguious proof that UFO abductions have not occured, or equivalently the impossibility of UFO abductions. If you want to roll out a vote of he scientific industry I will savwe you the trouble, you win the vote.

If you respond at all it would best be on the flat earth issue which, if I remember correctly, you introduced.

Or we could let the matter drift away and focus on the topics at hand which, for myself are, The detyection and measurement of absolute elevating the understamding of QM from the deep abyss of interference amplitude.

Was it you who challenged me on the question of intuitive simplicity of two hole diffraction? OK, but only if you insist. Actually I have already claimed that Feynman's Textbook, "Lectures on Physics" Vol III chapter 5 i(Spin-1 Particle Stern-Gerlach Transisiton Experiments)i s basically an exercise in physical nonsense. I know I could have chosen less electric or shocking a description, but 'physical nonsense' seems to be well known around this forum by just about everybody as we have all intimated at one time or another that another's posting was indeed, physical nonsense.

Geistkiesel

Geistkiesel,
No argument on the UFO thing. I gave up debating this on UFO forums long ago.

Flat Earth:
Assuming I have access to modern measuring equipment (accurate clocks, theodolites, laser rangefinders, etc...) here's what I would do, totally earth-based,not even looking at the sky.

I would get a ship with a tall mast. I would put a retroreflector on the mast. I would fire my laser rangefinder at the retro. I would observe the ship with my theodolite to measure the rate of descent of the mast as it moves over the horizon. Knowing the speed of the ship, its range, and the rate of descent of the mast, I could, using simple trig, not only proove the earth is round, but give you a good idea of its curvature too.

Geistkiesel,
No argument on the UFO thing. I gave up debating this on UFO forums long ago.

Flat Earth:
Assuming I have access to modern measuring equipment (accurate clocks, theodolites, laser rangefinders, etc...) here's what I would do, totally earth-based,not even looking at the sky.

I would get a ship with a tall mast. I would put a retroreflector on the mast. I would fire my laser rangefinder at the retro. I would observe the ship with my theodolite to measure the rate of descent of the mast as it moves over the horizon. Knowing the speed of the ship, its range, and the rate of descent of the mast, I could, using simple trig, not only proove the earth is round, but give you a good idea of its curvature too.

I wpould probably do the same thing, but what have you proved other than that one measurement? Like mountains might be used by some as examples of nonflat earth, your measurement would be but measurement f acurved ripple, no differebnt than a mountain, would it not?

If we accept the general foundations of quantum mechanics, all is ultimately quantized. From this is seems reasonable to assume tghat gravity does not result in a trully roundness over the total sutrface of he planet. Morelikely, QM thinkionmg that is, th eresult iof he gravity forces would be a surface of flat areas as if a millon coinms wefre evenly districuted over the surface, This would mean there were flat plate boundaries (that nmay or may not migrate i.e. move). While we intuitivel and ecpressly discuss QM in terms of the world of the small by ignoring possibilities of a QM world intrinsic to the large the aqssumption ofQM a description of only the smal would be arbitrary, and tyhe large ignored. This would mean, would it not, that a QM large world would, at first blush, appear as strange as the small when first scrutinized by the "mommies and daddies" of current QM theory?

Back to the mast measuring scheme. You will prove a curved ripple extending equidistant frim all shorelines if your apparatus always measures from say 100 meters from the beach. I admit an assault of this nature on an intuitive, natural and rational conclusion would defy our singular and collective reasoning. Our and scientific methodology would undergo a massive revolution, desired or otherwise, but then who are we mere mortals to define research targets before they are scrutinized properly?

Geistkiesel

Ok. First, I will repeat the experiment on many oceans, seperated by distances that would place them significant distances around the planet, assuming (for the moment) that my curvature calculations are correct.

If I measure a constant rate of curvature at many locations, I can deduce one thing right off the bat from basic geometry: A surface with equal curvature in all directions, in normal, 3 dimensional space, is spherical. To confirm that a full sphere exists (we don't live on a half-sphere or something), I will follow a Great Circle route. If, using my high precision inertial guidance system, I return to my starting point, I will have proven a spherical earth. This, in combination with things like Focault's pendulum experiment, will prove (at least to me) that I live on a rotating sphere. Without resorting to any astronomical phenomena, or ever looking at the sky.

Ok. First, I will repeat the experiment on many oceans, seperated by distances that would place them significant distances around the planet, assuming (for the moment) that my curvature calculations are correct.

If I measure a constant rate of curvature at many locations, I can deduce one thing right off the bat from basic geometry: A surface with equal curvature in all directions, in normal, 3 dimensional space, is spherical. To confirm that a full sphere exists (we don't live on a half-sphere or something), I will follow a Great Circle route. If, using my high precision inertial guidance system, I return to my starting point, I will have proven a spherical earth. This, in combination with things like Focault's pendulum experiment, will prove (at least to me) that I live on a rotating sphere. Without resorting to any astronomical phenomena, or ever looking at the sky.
SuperLum, Did not you just describe measuring the absolute motion of whatever you were measuring? You just described your total system as an inertial frame with an intrinsic inertial guidance system as an integral part thereof. What a concept.

You are the most intuitive person I have encountered in a very, very long time. You and my Great Grandaddy Geistkiesel I would have great fun digging deep into it all.

Geistkiesel

What he ment by getting more energy out than you put in is:

You get more engergy out than you yourself or the user puts in.. the rest of the energy comes from 3rd party forces.

Odin'Izm,

I think we figured that out about 8 or 10 posts back. Thanks anyway.

But how do you explain the stated efficiency of the stirling engine to be 70-80% when the maximum carnot efficiency is supposed to be 33.3333..% ?

I don't. I'm not an expert in thermodynamics by any stretch, but when I see statements like "getting more out than you put in" (i.e. I think someone's disposing of a fundamental physical law like conservation of energy, etc.) I go a little ballistic. I'm certain, however, that the answer dosen't violate fundamental thermodynamics.

How about MacM then?

I think you have scared everyone away just like you always do Sim.. its a curse that comes with curiousity

But how do you explain the stated efficiency of the stirling engine to be 70-80% when the maximum carnot efficiency is supposed to be 33.3333..% ?

Stirling Cycle is not a Carnot cycle.

http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/java/carnot/carnot.html

http://www.dynagen.co.za/eugene/stirling.htm

That is precisely why stirling cycles are favored where possible justs as heat pumps are favored where possible. Efficiency.

So back to my original question. Why can't the output from a compressor system (eg a fridge, that outputs 3 times more energy than is used to power it) feed into a stirling engine and actually be extracting heat from air leaving it cooler and with electrical or mechanical energy available to do work(more than what was used to power it)?

Trilobyte:
So back to my original question. Why can't the output from a compressor system (eg a fridge, that outputs 3 times more energy than is used to power it) feed into a stirling engine and actually be extracting heat from air leaving it cooler and with electrical or mechanical energy available to do work(more than what was used to power it)?

Because that would violate the law of conservation of energy. That's why. No free lunch. Can't get something for nothing. No perpetual motion.

Because that would violate the law of conservation of energy. That's why. No free lunch. Can't get something for nothing. No perpetual motion.


Without wasting a lot of time mathematically, that is an excellent answer but the fact is if you trace the mathematics you always have losses and only in a theoretically perfect system could you even "Break-Even" in such a process.

Remember the Stirling cycle is basically the reverse of the Heat pump. You can't just reverse the process and have a gain.

If the first process outputs 30 Joules when 10J is used to power it. You have 20J that was not there before absorbed from the air(not perpetual motion situation).The stirling is say 60% efficient - to under estimate.

0.6*30J = 18J (of output kinetic energy from the stirling)

18J-10J = 8J (overall gain of energy to system and loss from air)

If the first process outputs 30 Joules when 10J is used to power it. You have 20J that was not there before absorbed from the air(not perpetual motion situation).The stirling is say 60% efficient - to under estimate.

0.6*30J = 18J (of output kinetic energy from the stirling)

18J-10J = 8J (overall gain of energy to system and loss from air)

The problem here are your assumptions. You must first determine at what temperature differential your heat pump gets a COP = 3.0.

Then you must apply that temperature differential to the Stirling Cycle to see its efficiency.

You cannot assume a 60% Stirling Cycle without knowing the temperatures involved and what you will find is that if the Heat Pump is running a COP of 3.0 that the Stirling could get no more than 33.333% efficiency. With no losses of any kind then the outcome would be 1 = 1 but you can't get that output in reality.

Let me clarify:


Carnot Engine cycles are not Stirling Engine cycles. One is internal combustion of fuel the other is external combustion or heat. However they both have the same formula for efficiency.

The differance is a Carnot cycle may theoretically show a 57% efficency but in reality you would be lucky to actually get 30% out; whereas under the same conditions of temperature the Stirling might get 50% out. So it is the mechanics of the Stirling that make it superior, not its thermodynamics.

Since COP is the inverse of Carnot you have no opportunity to produce a gain but will always have some loss in a closed system.

http://www.bekkoame.ne.jp/~khirata/academic/kiriki/begin/general.html

NOTE: Using the formula shown herein remember that Tc and Th are in degrees absolute F or Rankine. They failed to state that and you can't just plug in F or C.

Notice the Carnot Cycle graph, the lower right hand corner where the pressure drops at exhaust. That is wasted output and corresponds to the exhaust valve on you car opening. That is why you need a muffler on your car.

This is one area where my ROPEngine patented design has an advantage. My engine can be "Hyper-expanded" and produces power throughout the cycle of pressure which duplicates the advantage of the Stirling Cycle. I also have "Burn Dwell" which increases the spike at the upper left of the Carnot diagram.

The ROPE basically achieves Stirling Cycle actual efficiencies but is a four cycle internal combustion engine.

http://groups.msn.com/McCoinUniKEFTheory/groupphotos.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=94

http://groups.msn.com/McCoinUniKEFTheory/groupphotos.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=96

Perhaps our local Russian genius will enlighten you as to what possible mechanisim lies behind the combustion chamber that lets this marvel of design by a Crackpot become declared as "Breakthrough Technology" by the likes of Boeing Phantom Works (Think Tank).

I achieved this without doing any calculus inspite of the fact that it technically required it. I did it without going back and re-learning the tedium of that math by writting "Simpson Integrations, run twice at different intervals, through a trapozoidal correction routine". (I write very accurate scientific software that uses less sophisticated mathematics but parallels the result):D