Okay, what if the textbooks are right?---
What if there is NO hidden source of energy, and heat can only be converted to work within the bounds of the second law of thermodynamics? Then what?
There are a few simple responses to the question--
(1) Not all energy sources are heat sources. Then, we aren't limited by the Carnot limit. (No, not mine, silly.)
(2) If it is a heat source, then we can have CHP: Combined Heat and Power. If you use all the "waste" heat, to heat your house or something, then there really is no waste.
(3) You can STILL in effect get some extra FREE energy if you raise the efficiency of your engine. If you double the efficiency of the engine, it's like a "two-for-one" sale-- you pay for the first unit of power and then the second one is "free." But, you may ask, can we double the efficiency of a common engine, say like the one in the car? I say the answer is "YES."
Here is the common statement for the Carnot efficiency---
Eff = 1 - TL/TH
This is given in terms of the "High" input temperature and the "Low" output temperature. For a typical engine, here is a better formula for the Carnot limit--
Eff = 1 - 1 / Rck-1
Here, Rc is the compression ratio. (For a more accurate formula, you can go to http://www.ernsblog.com (http://www.ernsblog.com).)
The very best car engines today are getting about 30% efficiency. My analysis indicates that, by very careful design, a 60% efficient car engine is definitely possible. The first step in getting this greater efficiency is to increase the compression ratio as indicated in the formula above. But of course this is only the first step.
Ernie Rogers
have you ever built an engine?
have you ever modified an engine? such as converting it to run on alcohol or methane?
is this just a paper analysis?
ok
how does your question address the topic at hand? did you even bother to read his blog? or did you just post some asinine knee jerk reaction?
he has a blog where he says he is currently working on an engine. then if you click on the engine link he says he is planning to start construction. i want to know if he has ever built an engine prior to this attempt or planned attempt.
if you can answer this magnethos, please do. if not, shut up.
Hi, Carnot! Interesting post!
Quote from: CARN0T on December 27, 2008, 01:54:23 PM
Okay, what if the textbooks are right?---
What if there is NO hidden source of energy, and heat can only be converted to work within the bounds of the second law of thermodynamics? Then what?
So far, the textbooks ARE right... When dealing with the "Heat", the second Law is THE LAW... Of course, anybody can change it anytime with a decent proof ..
Quote
There are a few simple responses to the question--
(1) Not all energy sources are heat sources. Then, we aren't limited by the Carnot limit. (No, not mine, silly.)
Yes, not all energy sources are in it's basics a heat source.
A heat source implies a source which is rather low on the scale of the energy origin or quality. But yes, talking about heat source engines, the Carnot type (no, not you, silly! ;D) is the limit.
Quote
(2) If it is a heat source, then we can have CHP: Combined Heat and Power. If you use all the "waste" heat, to heat your house or something, then there really is no waste.
Hmm... Imagine a perfectly insulated house (the one with no heat "losses"). It would be impossible to live in! The radiated heat of it's inhabitants - "bioplants" would cause an unbearable, heat stressed conditions... Luckily (or sadly), this is just theory. We all know by now that a very good heat insulation (realistic!) is a basics for a low energy/cost living (assuming you live in a moderate or cold areas)...
Combined heat and power? A-HA..!
Tap the heat coming from the tailpipe of your car.... At least 50% of the fuel energy is converted to - heat...
Convert your oil burner & boiler to the diesel engine (using waste heat for heating, and a pure mechanical power for producing an electricity...). The results?
Quote
(3) You can STILL in effect get some extra FREE energy if you raise the efficiency of your engine. If you double the efficiency of the engine, it's like a "two-for-one" sale-- you pay for the first unit of power and then the second one is "free." But, you may ask, can we double the efficiency of a common engine, say like the one in the car? I say the answer is "YES."
Here is the common statement for the Carnot efficiency---
Eff = 1 - TL/TH
This is given in terms of the "High" input temperature and the "Low" output temperature. For a typical engine, here is a better formula for the Carnot limit--
Eff = 1 - 1 / Rck-1
Here, Rc is the compression ratio. (For a more accurate formula, you can go to http://www.ernsblog.com (http://www.ernsblog.com).)
The very best car engines today are getting about 30% efficiency. My analysis indicates that, by very careful design, a 60% efficient car engine is definitely possible. The first step in getting this greater efficiency is to increase the compression ratio as indicated in the formula above. But of course this is only the first step.
Ernie Rogers
Thanks! You're one of a few ''FE' people who are pointing to THE PROBLEM of heat engines as we know them today... An IC is struggling to overcome 30% (that would be a good diesel type), or maybe 40...50% (...nuclears plants)...
I'm very skeptical about reaching 60% of efficiency with a "carefull design" of an ICE...
There is still a "Carnot limit" >> u=1-Tc/Th, which says efficiency can close to unity when heat difference come close to
infinity....
A Deep Space heat drain and a Stars Core source - They provide a >80% Carnot efficiency..!!?? This is so fucked up!
Yep, with an ICE, a compression ratio is one of the keys to improve efficiency. But in realistic engineering terms, this means at least a bit more complicated design... Diesels have normally twice the compression of the petrol types engines.... They're more "robust", (and more close to the limits of the technology)... Try to design an engine, capable of sustaining 10-times the compression of diesels for at least 200 000 km... Hmm...?
Good luck!
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on December 27, 2008, 02:55:41 PM
have you ever built an engine?
have you ever modified an engine? such as converting it to run on alcohol or methane?
is this just a paper analysis?
That's a fair question. I have never built an engine. The last time I worked on an engine (a lawnmower), I destroyed it. I am a physicist, and I recognize my shortcomings here. (I have designed and built machines previously, and I know how tough it can be.) Up until a year ago, I had a partner on the design work. He had rebuilt hundreds of engines (mostly diesels) and has some engine inventions of his own. He got a good job and the work came to a halt. Two weeks ago, I filed a provisional patent application (at the urging of my patent attorney). My goal now is to put together a good team, with adequate funding, and build a prototype to test and refine. The target compression ratio is 40. This should be enough to come very close to the desired 60% efficiency. As I'm sure you understand, there is a lot more to the problem than just raising the compression ratio.
Ernie Rogers
what is required Is a miller or Atkinson cycle engine. keep the compression, its limited by the gasoline. but up the expansion ratio.
Quote from: spinner on December 27, 2008, 04:08:52 PM
Hi, Carnot! <SNIP>
- - - -
I'm very skeptical about reaching 60% of efficiency with a "carefull design" of an ICE...
There is still a "Carnot limit" >> u=1-Tc/Th, <SNIP>
- - - -
Good luck!
Thanks, Spinner, for the very well-thought-out response. As just mentioned above, my target compression ratio is 40. Let's try that in the formula, with the specific heat ratio k = 1.35. The formula again--
Eff = 1 - 1 / R
ck-1putting in 40 for R
c and 0.35 for k-1, I get--
Eff = 0.725
This is the indicated efficiency without thermal and mechanical losses. If we lump these losses together as the "mechanical efficiency," then the allowed mechanical efficiency is Eff
M = 0.83 or better.
There's the tall order that I face, to hold all of the practical losses to 17%. Well, frankly, I don't know if I will succeed. IF I can build an engine that runs well at that compression ratio, then I am assured that it will far exceed any (small) engine currently in production. (Note that some very large piston engines (i.e., Sulzer) have already achieved 55% efficiency.)
Ernie Rogers
Quote from: CARN0T on December 27, 2008, 06:04:46 PM
That's a fair question. I have never built an engine. The last time I worked on an engine (a lawnmower), I destroyed it. I am a physicist, and I recognize my shortcomings here. (I have designed and built machines previously, and I know how tough it can be.) Up until a year ago, I had a partner on the design work. He had rebuilt hundreds of engines (mostly diesels) and has some engine inventions of his own. He got a good job and the work came to a halt. Two weeks ago, I filed a provisional patent application (at the urging of my patent attorney). My goal now is to put together a good team, with adequate funding, and build a prototype to test and refine. The target compression ratio is 40. This should be enough to come very close to the desired 60% efficiency. As I'm sure you understand, there is a lot more to the problem than just raising the compression ratio.
Ernie Rogers
thanks for your honest and candid answer ernie. what would be the best place to stay up to date on your project, this thread or your blog?
Quote from: fritznien on December 27, 2008, 06:29:58 PM
what is required Is a miller or Atkinson cycle engine. keep the compression, its limited by the gasoline. but up the expansion ratio.
Hello, Fritz,
I agree with your thinking. Actually, I think most efforts today to increase efficiency of an engine involve direct injection into the cylinder. This allows the compression ratio to be increased no matter what fuel you use, but with a price in combustion complexity. And, as you say, the expansion ratio is the key to high efficiency. At my blog ( http://www.ernsblog.com (http://www.ernsblog.com) ) I derive the efficiency equation for an engine as a function of several parameters, including the compression ratio and the "Atkinson ratio." I define the Atkinson ratio as the expansion ratio divided by the compression ratio.
Slight correction-- the equation at the blog is for an Atkinson-Diesel, where the Diesel cycle has the classical definition of heat input at constant pressure. I have previously looked at the Atkinson-Otto cycle, but found that less interesting.
Ernie Rogers
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on December 27, 2008, 06:49:01 PM
thanks for your honest and candid answer ernie. what would be the best place to stay up to date on your project, this thread or your blog?
Hello, Wilby,
I will make a promise that when I update my blog on this, I will post a notice here. So, I think this group is the best place to keep in touch.
Ernie Rogers
@CARNOT
untill now i also assume textbooks right,untill not proven otherwise.Sill it does not block my mind to allow more exotic approaches.
Indeed,improving of efficiency is the everyday battle worth playing.Many people on this forum agrees on that ( i have a feeling based on posts i read here everyday).
From personal experience,IC is quite complex to work on and asks for some good understanding across different fields in physics.Others already pointed out some problems u may face,i will add an increased heat flux through combustion chamber walls and cylinder wall.In order to keep materials not overstressed , u will have to increase cooling(implying higher heat loses).
WOW 40:1 compression ratio - you may want to consider water injection to help reduce the chances of detonation.
Are you familiar with a Pantone 'GEET' device - it may help in reducing the operating temperature, and also help with the efficiencies.
I wish you best of luck.
My personal project for the past 5-6 years has been creating a clean burning 2 stroke engine. I started with consulting a few engineers sympathetic to the cause and willing to help guide me in my designs. Right about the time I was ready to commit funds to purchasing raw materials to build the top end out of, I stumbled upon a different approach - clean burning fuels and now I'm following up on that angle.
One clean burning fuel in particular is Hydrogen from water. I've been working on a hydrogen fuel cell system for the past couple years and when I'm done I can't wait to bring the final product to the EPA and show them a clean burning 2 stroke. I just love the 2 stroke engine dynamics and would like to find a way to save it and keep green at the same time.
Again best of luck.
Here's another thought - what if the text books are right in so far as laboratory science?
When I think of my textbooks for High School and College - the chemistry and physics textbooks were replications of experiments done in laboratory conditions, controlled conditions, with controlled factors.
I've observed many engineers and scientists rely solely upon the textbooks for their reasoning. Many refuse over unity concepts because they involve factors and variables that do not conform to traditional textbook approaches.
I've been told by more than a few educated people that hydrogen on demand from electrolysis will not produce enough fuel to run a vehicle - it will not work and that it would require too much energy (which I've often asked how much energy just to receive a blank stare). I have a hard time accepting that answer due to the Stan Myers, Bob Boyces, and others who have done already it.
There is always a possibility of overlooked abnormalities.
"...It is surprising and delightful that comparatively large relativity violations could still be awaiting discovery despite a century of precision testing..."
"Possible Abnormality In Fundamental Building Block Of Einstein's Theory Of Relativity"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090105150837.htm
Hello, Buzz,
I'm sure you aren't trying to persuade us to continue searching for classical perpetual motion machines--are you?
Nuclear processes (and all of modern physics) obey the laws of thermodynamics.
IF there are undiscovered energy sources in the universe, they are undiscovered.
We have plenty of other problems to work on, such as how to make a really cost-effective solar panel. Or, a cheap way to purify water with solar energy.
Anybody want to work on problems like these?
Ernie Rogers
Quote from: TheBuzz on January 06, 2009, 11:45:57 PM
If the textbooks are right, then this is not possible and did not happen:
Russian Tsar Hydrogen Bomb Explosion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ33O0qFeM0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ33O0qFeM0)
Now maybe you could show me where thermodynamics describes that. Since the universe stored the energy within the mass before you came along and it takes very little energy to convert it into the atomic energy contained within the mass then that is truly OU and your question just got answered.
You owe me $10 dollars or a good karma point (your choice) for the deprogramming they put in you through textbooks and teachers.
...if people would understand how things work (for example like Ed Leedskalnin did - the Coral castle guy and many others), there would not be such problems... and the textbooks - who wrote them anyway and when? Such "textbooks" should be updated at least every year so the info would not be so much missleading... the textbooks still doesn't present a clear answer to the question "what is electricity" ... so we still don't know what really is powering our houses? We don't really know what are we playing with, do we? LOL
Dann
The text books your talking about that are teaching these laws of thermal dynamics are like our laws in society, they are blanket policies to keep it simple for the masses to understand. Like our society laws with in them there are many "exceptions" "isolated incidents" that are exempt from those laws. They aren't the be all and end all. Your text books are there as a guide to give you a broad understanding on a very wide array of information. There is no need to go into minute detail of how everything works. If you need a reason as to why, what need does a civil engineer need for the understanding of quantum mechanics?!? not a lot. So he gets a quick run down on the very basics of the broad spectrum in that area and then left to concentrate on his other studies.
Hello, Dann,
Haven't you wondered why we are still using those old-fashioned generators in the textbooks, and why nobody has yet claimed the over-unity prize?
Ernie Rogers
Quote from: madddann on January 07, 2009, 10:08:06 AM
...if people would understand how things work (for example like Ed Leedskalnin did - the Coral castle guy and many others), there would not be such problems... and the textbooks - who wrote them anyway and when? Such "textbooks" should be updated at least every year so the info would not be so much missleading... the textbooks still doesn't present a clear answer to the question "what is electricity" ... so we still don't know what really is powering our houses? We don't really know what are we playing with, do we? LOL
Dann
This post is simply false.
Sorry /Ernie Rogers
Quote from: CrazyEwok on January 07, 2009, 07:51:40 PM
The text books your talking about that are teaching these laws of thermal dynamics are like our laws in society, they are blanket policies to keep it simple for the masses to understand. Like our society laws with in them there are many "exceptions" "isolated incidents" that are exempt from those laws. They aren't the be all and end all. Your text books are there as a guide to give you a broad understanding on a very wide array of information. There is no need to go into minute detail of how everything works. If you need a reason as to why, what need does a civil engineer need for the understanding of quantum mechanics?!? not a lot. So he gets a quick run down on the very basics of the broad spectrum in that area and then left to concentrate on his other studies.
Brownian motion enough said
Quote from: CARN0T on January 07, 2009, 10:02:13 PM
Hello, Dann,
Haven't you wondered why we are still using those old-fashioned generators in the textbooks, and why nobody has yet claimed the over-unity prize?
Ernie Rogers
'cause people are lazy and full of greed ;D ...and probably anyone that works on a FE device doesn't have money, so he is forced to go for the big buck, not the OU prize...
this world is in a perpetual motion loop of madness
Quote from: CARN0T on January 07, 2009, 10:05:39 PM
This post is simply false.
Sorry /Ernie Rogers
thats pretty gutsy ernie, it is a theory (thermodynamics) is it not? ie: it's not pythagoras' law, it's pythagoras' theorem. please, no discussion of how silly science is with its casual use of 'law', 'principle', 'theory', 'theorem', etc.
i mean come on, mayer's original paper was contemptuously rejected by the leading physics journals of the time, and now it's revered like the bible... scientists/physicists can be so ridiculous.
it is ALL theory/theorem. science is not omnipotent, point in fact, science is rather ignorant, there is a lot we don't know, there is a lot we guess at. we still don't have a good idea of how a photon exists in reality...
circular arguments are used all the time. ie: student asks teacher "why does the apple fall down from the tree?" and teacher says "because of the 'law of gravity' grasshopper" which is not the reason for an apple falling, only another description of the event using longer words.
you know science is a lot like fashion, academics glom on to whatever theory/theorem is popular at the present time, a few tell it like it really is.
"Our knowledge is finite, but our ignorance is nearly infinite" - George Gore - 19th Cent.
"We are going along guessing the laws" - Richard P. Feynman - 20th Cent.
"Few scientists nowadays seriously believe that their laws are true" - Profs. Jack Cohen & Ian Stewart - 1994
"What the scientists say now is likely to be false" - Nigel Calder - '04
"Every cosmology book in the library is out-of-date, in fact, wrong" - Michio Kaku - '05
"We know no more than we did in 1975 - and that's not good" - Lee Smolin - 07 Mar '07 - (BBC: R3)
"Science fails in Explanation" - Lorenz, Darwin et al
Hello, Wilby,
Your reply was very eloquent.
The first and second laws of thermodynamics are laws because they have been subjected to scrutiny and test for over one hundred years without anyone discovering the very slightest deviation.
To deny this truth is a poor way to find further knowledge.
Ernie Rogers
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on January 08, 2009, 06:32:17 AM
thats pretty gutsy ernie, it is a theory (thermodynamics) is it not? ie: it's not pythagoras' law, it's pythagoras' theorem. please, no discussion of how silly science is with its casual use of 'law', 'principle', 'theory', 'theorem', etc.
i mean come on, mayer's original paper was contemptuously rejected by the leading physics journals of the time, and now it's revered like the bible... scientists/physicists can be so ridiculous.
it is ALL theory/theorem. science is not omnipotent, point in fact, science is rather ignorant, there is a lot we don't know, there is a lot we guess at. we still don't have a good idea of how a photon exists in reality...
circular arguments are used all the time. ie: student asks teacher "why does the apple fall down from the tree?" and teacher says "because of the 'law of gravity' grasshopper" which is not the reason for an apple falling, only another description of the event using longer words.
you know science is a lot like fashion, academics glom on to whatever theory/theorem is popular at the present time, a few tell it like it really is.
"Our knowledge is finite, but our ignorance is nearly infinite" - George Gore - 19th Cent.
"We are going along guessing the laws" - Richard P. Feynman - 20th Cent.
"Few scientists nowadays seriously believe that their laws are true" - Profs. Jack Cohen & Ian Stewart - 1994
"What the scientists say now is likely to be false" - Nigel Calder - '04
"Every cosmology book in the library is out-of-date, in fact, wrong" - Michio Kaku - '05
"We know no more than we did in 1975 - and that's not good" - Lee Smolin - 07 Mar '07 - (BBC: R3)
"Science fails in Explanation" - Lorenz, Darwin et al
Quote from: CARN0T on January 11, 2009, 11:41:52 PM
Hello, Wilby,
Your reply was very eloquent.
The first and second laws of thermodynamics are laws because they have been subjected to scrutiny and test for over one hundred years without anyone discovering the very slightest deviation.
To deny this truth is a poor way to find further knowledge.
Ernie Rogers
thanks ernie, and while i will not argue that they have been subjected to very close scrutiny and test for over one hundred years, that does not make them 'universal' or a 'law', it still remains a theory, a theory backed up with a lot of data, but still a theory none the less. a calculation is just that, a calculation, nothing more. science has a long history of ostracizing
ANYONE, lay person and scientist alike, who brings a claim that changes the status quo, see this page (http://caccphysics.cacc.cc.al.us/phy-webpages/Ridiculed%20science%20mavericks.htm). perhaps scientists/physicists all need a history lesson of their peers despicable behavior?
i seem to recall a british institution saying that everything that could be invented, had been. this was the in 19th century i believe? sounds ludicrous now doesn't it? that's my point, 100 years ago brilliant physicists like yourself wrote many papers about how the best engine of the day could not effect man powered flight...what happened to those calculations? 500 years ago EVERYONE knew the world was flat. 500 years from now? who knows what the future will bring, surely you don't claim this knowledge do you?
should you be ostracized because you destroyed the last motor you worked on? some may say yes, that it demonstrates incompetence. i say no, because you really didn't give me enough information to make an informed opinion. ie: if you tried to raise the compression to 40:1 on a lawnmower, it ending up being destroyed is perfectly understandable.
i'm really not interested in all this 'grandstanding' and 'proselytizing', what i am interested in is how you plan to effect a 40:1 compression ratio...
Does anybody know what magnetic arrangements/experiments have been tried by physics or science to give them the idea that magnets are only conservative and always result in a sum of zero? It would be good to know the arrangements that have already been tried so they are not repeated.
Hello, Liberty,
I think every student of physics at some time tries to discover new principles involving magnets. Books have been written on the subject. The good books are saying that "perpetual motion machines" don't work.
You will go further in your pursuits if you adopt the view that if you don't know exactly where the expected energy is coming from (e.g., you put it in) then you shouldn't expect to get any energy.
Every testbook on this topic should include that a magnetic field from a magnet can be represented as a scalar potential field. A requirement that a scalar field exist is that the curl of B = 0 and this is interpreted as a condition for a "conservative field." Yet I am having trouble at the moment with the idea that a magnetic field be "conservative" since I don't know where to get the "test charge" to verify the fact. (I am a bit rusty here.)
Ernie Rogers
Quote from: Liberty on January 12, 2009, 07:24:20 AM
Does anybody know what magnetic arrangements/experiments have been tried by physics or science to give them the idea that magnets are only conservative and always result in a sum of zero? It would be good to know the arrangements that have already been tried so they are not repeated.
Anyone happen to know if ceramic magnets are used in alternators or neodymium? If Neo-d's are the strongest production magnets, perhaps that would be more efficient?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on January 12, 2009, 12:23:09 AM
thanks ernie, and while i will not argue that they have been subjected to very close scrutiny and test for over one hundred years, that does not make them 'universal' or a 'law', it still remains a theory, a theory backed up with a lot of data, but still a theory none the less. a calculation is just that, a calculation, nothing more. science has a long history of ostracizing ANYONE, lay person and scientist alike, who brings a claim that changes the status quo, see this page (http://caccphysics.cacc.cc.al.us/phy-webpages/Ridiculed%20science%20mavericks.htm). perhaps scientists/physicists all need a history lesson of their peers despicable behavior?
Laws of TD have been in power for more than 100 years now... And so far, they're shown to be the "death proved" method in science. That's why they're a called LAW, not THEORY.
But you're right, the minute when someone can prove they're not working, the science would (probably?) admit the error and moved on....
All what is needed is a good, solid proof! Until then, why change something which definitely works?
Quote
i seem to recall a british institution saying that everything that could be invented, had been. this was the in 19th century i believe? sounds ludicrous now doesn't it? that's my point, 100 years ago brilliant physicists like yourself wrote many papers about how the best engine of the day could not effect man powered flight...what happened to those calculations? 500 years ago EVERYONE knew the world was flat. 500 years from now? who knows what the future will bring, surely you don't claim this knowledge do you?
You see, the "history" can be quite partial, or biased.... Depends on which sources you trust.? Yes, Science make mistakes, no doubt...
But there were mostly important individuals (not always scientists), who at some time expressed a (wrong) opinion... (Teachers, physics, doctors, politicians, scientists, generals, presidents... whatever... ) And who were later quoted by many....
(I had a chance to read a lot of such brilliant statements from different sources....) ... Lord Kelvin, etc...
The case you're mentioning - I think I remember that the pearson was a head of a US patent office, expressing his (narrow-minded) opinion during an important event (World Show event or something).. One pearson! That surely was not a general scientific opinion?
The same goes for possibility of flight, space exploration, nuclear technology, revolutionary medicine, chemistry, economy.... Name it...
It's up to any individual to form his/hers impartial opinion..
I must say that the general FE community is seriously clogged with extremely partial "historical sources"...
Many "urban legends" became a "historical facts"...
Like the famous saying that the "bumblebee cannot fly".... On many FE pages, it is quoted as a proof for scientific nonsense...
But it is interesting to trace this statement back in time....
Cheers!
Quote from: CARN0T on January 12, 2009, 02:49:53 PM
Hello, Liberty,
I think every student of physics at some time tries to discover new principles involving magnets. Books have been written on the subject. The good books are saying that "perpetual motion machines" don't work.
You will go further in your pursuits if you adopt the view that if you don't know exactly where the expected energy is coming from (e.g., you put it in) then you shouldn't expect to get any energy.
Every testbook on this topic should include that a magnetic field from a magnet can be represented as a scalar potential field. A requirement that a scalar field exist is that the curl of B = 0 and this is interpreted as a condition for a "conservative field." Yet I am having trouble at the moment with the idea that a magnetic field be "conservative" since I don't know where to get the "test charge" to verify the fact. (I am a bit rusty here.)
Ernie Rogers
Thanks for your information Ernie. I will be putting my unorthodox "idea" to the test fairly soon.
Quote from: spinner on January 12, 2009, 04:03:12 PM
Laws of TD have been in power for more than 100 years now... And so far, they're shown to be the "death proved" method in science. That's why they're a called LAW, not THEORY.
But you're right, the minute when someone can prove they're not working, the science would (probably?) admit the error and moved on....
All what is needed is a good, solid proof! Until then, why change something which definitely works?
You see, the "history" can be quite partial, or biased.... Depends on which sources you trust.? Yes, Science make mistakes, no doubt...
But there were mostly important individuals (not always scientists), who at some time expressed a (wrong) opinion... (Teachers, physics, doctors, politicians, scientists, generals, presidents... whatever... ) And who were later quoted by many....
(I had a chance to read a lot of such brilliant statements from different sources....) ... Lord Kelvin, etc...
The case you're mentioning - I think I remember that the pearson was a head of a US patent office, expressing his (narrow-minded) opinion during an important event (World Show event or something).. One pearson! That surely was not a general scientific opinion?
The same goes for possibility of flight, space exploration, nuclear technology, revolutionary medicine, chemistry, economy.... Name it...
It's up to any individual to form his/hers impartial opinion..
I must say that the general FE community is seriously clogged with extremely partial "historical sources"...
Many "urban legends" became a "historical facts"...
Like the famous saying that the "bumblebee cannot fly".... On many FE pages, it is quoted as a proof for scientific nonsense...
But it is interesting to trace this statement back in time....
Cheers!
didn't i say something about no silly discussion about how casual the science religion is with principle, law, theory and theorem? and yet here you are responding to to a comment that was not addressed to you or even to all, it was specifically addressed to ernie...
but i'll play along once.
really? then why isn't pythagoras theorem called a law? ::)
you are correct, it wasn't some british society group it was the commissioner of the patent office. it was lord kelvin who said "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." my bad.
as i said earlier i'm not really interested in proseltyzing
science would probably NOT admit the error and move on, history demonstrates this OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. i gave a list. perhaps you didn't read it... pay close attention to chandra and what eddington did, "Never underestimate the authority-following tendency of the physics community, or the power of ridicule when used by people of stature such as Eddington."
these aren't 'one person' incidents. i've read brilliant statements from a lot of different source also... so what
heres the short list, AGAIN
* Arrhenius (ion chemistry)
* Alfven, Hans (galaxy-scale plasma dynamics)
* Baird, John L. (television camera)
* Bakker, Robert (fast, warm-blooded dinosaurs)
* Bardeen & Brattain (transistor)
* Chandrasekhar, Subrahmanyan (black holes in 1930)
* Chladni, Ernst (meteorites in 1800)
* Crick & Watson (DNA)
* Doppler (optical Doppler effect)
* Folk, Robert L. (existence and importance of nanobacteria)
* Galvani (bioelectricity)
* Harvey, William (circulation of blood, 1628)
* Krebs (ATP energy, Krebs cycle)
* Galileo (supported the Copernican viewpoint)
* Gauss, Karl F. (nonEuclidean geometery)
* Binning/Roher/Gimzewski (scanning-tunneling microscope)
* Goddard, Robert (rocket-powered space ships)
* Goethe (Land color theory)
* Gold, Thomas (deep non-biological petroleum deposits)
* Gold, Thomas (deep mine bacteria)
* Lister, J (sterilizing)
* T Maiman (Laser)
"Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labeled as 'conceptual necessities,' etc. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors." - Einstein
* Margulis, Lynn (endosymbiotic organelles)
* Mayer, Julius R. (The Law of Conservation of Energy)
* Marshall, B (ulcers caused by bacteria, helicobacter pylori)
* McClintlock, Barbara (mobile genetic elements, "jumping genes", transposons)
* Newlands, J. (pre-Mendeleev periodic table)
* Nottebohm, F. (neurogenesis: brains can grow neurons)
* Ohm, George S. (Ohm's Law)
* Ovshinsky, Stanford R. (amorphous semiconductor devices)
* Pasteur, Louis (germ theory of disease)
* Prusiner, Stanley (existence of prions, 1982)
* Rous, Peyton (viruses cause cancer)
* Semmelweis, I. (surgeons wash hands, puerperal fever )
* Tesla, Nikola (Earth electrical resonance, "Schumann" resonance)
* Tesla, Nikola (brushless AC motor)
* J H van't Hoff (molecules are 3D)
* Warren, Warren S (flaw in MRI theory)
* Wegener, Alfred (continental drift)
* Wright, Wilbur & Orville (flying machines)
* Zwicky, Fritz (existence of dark matter, 1933)
* Zweig, George (quark theory)
taken from http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html
perhaps you should spend more time actually building than playing with calculations and formulas. this is where academia fails, no one needs to pay to go to school (which is probably why you defend it, you have to, you have a 'vested' interest) to have someone teach them how the world works, embrace the world it will teach you for free. ie: all of car0t's academia and schooling and calculations and formulas DID NOT prevent him from destroying a lawn mower engine.
there is NO formula or calculation in existence today that can take into account all of the encompassing effects of nature. nor is a calculation a substitute for actually doing it. further more,
anything based entirely on calculations is suspect as it is subject to human error.
note that i made no mention of bumblebees...
edit: i almost forgot our thread creators namesake, sadi carnot founded thermodynamics in 1824 but that attracted little attention during his lifetime. the principles involved were grasped some twenty years later by... joule. what was it again? oh yeah,
the carnot THEOREM... ::)
cheers ;)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on January 13, 2009, 12:17:07 AM
- - ie: all of car0t's academia and schooling and calculations and formulas DID NOT prevent him from destroying a lawn mower engine.
Aha! You just confounded your own argument. ;D
The occasion when I screwed up was when I DID ignore the learning of the past, and go ahead and do something without first studying the relevant science or take a class in lawnmower engines.
I replaced a wiper ring with a sealing ring. Kaflooey!
But, I bet you wouldn't have made that mistake.
Ernie Rogers
Quote from: CARN0T on January 13, 2009, 12:32:02 PM
Aha! You just confounded your own argument. ;D
The occasion when I screwed up was when I DID ignore the learning of the past, and go ahead and do something without first studying the relevant science or take a class in lawnmower engines.
I replaced a wiper ring with a sealing ring. Kaflooey!
But, I bet you wouldn't have made that mistake.
Ernie Rogers
no, i didn't and no i wouldn't have. see, i learned 2 stroke engine theory by rebuilding the minibike my father bought me at age 5 from the frame up. he made me do this as well as be able to explain to him in a reasonable manner how it worked and why before he would let me ride it, and boy was i pissed at having to tear down and rebuild over a winter. now i can't thank him enough, that experience lets me sniff out theorists like yourself in a heartbeat.
i knew at 5 what it took you a lifetime and a small fortune to learn, go back to your books ernie...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on January 13, 2009, 12:17:07 AM
didn't i say something about no silly discussion about how casual the science religion is with principle, law, theory and theorem? and yet here you are responding to to a comment that was not addressed to you or even to all, it was specifically addressed to ernie...
but i'll play along once.
this forum is an open space for anyone to express their opinion.If u wanted no discussion,why u started and followed one. PM is for personall messages,anything else put into wide post is an opening for debate.
Models,laws,teorems are all to make descriptive tasks and predictions easier about the things we already know.They r not to be a research apparatus per se,but can be build to suit some conditions occuring in nature.They may be unreliable in new conditions,may forsee false states or may ommit some of the circumstances.
It is just a tool like hammer or screwdriver.of course u will not be able to screw all of the possible screws with a given screwdriver,but its pretty good for the family of screws..and so on.
When they look suitable they r constantly tested in new conditions and corrected if needed.In the end u get pretty good design tool and u don't have to, for example ,cut 100 samples of wire and choose a one with the resistance u need.U can just calculate that the wire u need will be 1.4 m +/- 1cm,reducing the wasted material,time and effort..
Models are also ways to communicate between people( a common language).If u had only hand working people ,all of them will end up with different names for thing they do and tools they use.How do u think it would influence knowledge propagation?think of it as a standarisation enforcement(if u r more familiair with industry/business)..
Is it a theorem or a law?..who cares as long as it works(i don't have to know german name for screwdriver,but i can use it..)
Experimenting/building/tesing may find flawned models...models can open new possibilities to experimenting ..and the circle is round.
Relying on one or the other side of the barricade only is an obvious hinder and let u unflexible and mind-casted into numbers or tradition of operation..a healthy mix is what u need.
Quote from: Creativity on January 13, 2009, 01:25:12 PM
this forum is an open space for anyone to express their opinion.If u wanted no discussion,why u started and followed one. PM is for personall messages,anything else put into wide post is an opening for debate.
Models,laws,teorems are all to make descriptive tasks and predictions easier about the things we already know.They r not to be a research apparatus per se,but can be build to suit some conditions occuring in nature.They may be unreliable in new conditions,may forsee false states or may ommit some of the circumstances.
It is just a tool like hammer or screwdriver.of course u will not be able to screw all of the possible screws with a given screwdriver,but its pretty good for the family of screws..and so on.
When they look suitable they r constantly tested in new conditions and corrected if needed.In the end u get pretty good design tool and u don't have to, for example ,cut 100 samples of wire and choose a one with the resistance u need.U can just calculate that the wire u need will be 1.4 m +/- 1cm,reducing the wasted material,time and effort..
Models are also ways to communicate between people( a common language).If u had only hand working people ,all of them will end up with different names for thing they do and tools they use.How do u think it would influence knowledge propagation?think of it as a standarisation enforcement(if u r more familiair with industry/business)..
Is it a theorem or a law?..who cares as long as it works(i don't have to know german name for screwdriver,but i can use it..)
Experimenting/building/tesing may find flawned models...models can open new possibilities to experimenting ..and the circle is round.
Relying on one or the other side of the barricade only is an obvious hinder and let u unflexible and mind-casted into numbers or tradition of operation..a healthy mix is what u need.
my post was specifically addressed to ernie, not spinner and not you.
but i'll play along once.
i care if it's a theorem or a law. why? because to describe thing as best we can, we can't be using multiple words that don't have the same meaning to describe that thing. further more using the word 'law' implies something entirely different than using the word 'theorem'.
and speaking of a common language, its
YOU and
ARE. and further more, try using the spell check once in a while when you attempt to communicate. when you are posting, that red line under a word usually means you misspelled it.
thank u.I never saw this button before,now all problems will be solved in a fraction of a second and i learned something! what a day :) all of this seems more like a linguistic discrepancy than a real hinder to the science.I imagine i wake up tomorrow and all of the laws r theorems,cars r with 5 wheels and i m using trackball instead of the non existing mouse device to click on the "sprawdź pisownię" button because English is somehow not a common language in my dream...huh let be it ;)At least my green tea has not changed :)
offtopic: those r grammatical rules not laws to stick to this subtle play of interpretations.We r all grown enough to see through the interpretations to the level of abstraction where it still makes a real difference.
Quote from: Creativity on January 13, 2009, 02:14:06 PM
thank u.I never saw this button before,now all problems will be solved in a fraction of a second and i learned something! what a day :) all of this seems more like a linguistic discrepancy than a real hinder to the science.I imagine i wake up tomorrow and all of the laws r theorems,cars r with 5 wheels and i m using trackball instead of the non existing mouse device to click on the "sprawdź pisownię" button because English is somehow not a common language in my dream...huh let be it ;)At least my green tea has not changed :)
offtopic: those r grammatical rules not laws to stick to this subtle play of interpretations.We r all grown enough to see through the interpretations to the level of abstraction where it still makes a real difference.
your comment has been disregarded since you can not bother yourself to speak the language we are using here.
my point remains. i specifically addressed ernie. not you, and not spinner so shut up. look at the post, see, it starts with, "thanks ERNIE". note, not thanks spinner or thanks creativity or thanks tom dick or harry. impetuous small children interrupt conversations when they want attention...now go to your room until you can behave like a grownup.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on January 14, 2009, 06:49:06 AM
your comment has been disregarded since you can not bother yourself to speak the language we are using here.
my point remains. i specifically addressed ernie. not you, and not spinner so shut up. look at the post, see, it starts with, "thanks ERNIE". note, not thanks spinner or thanks creativity or thanks tom dick or harry. impetuous small children interrupt conversations when they want attention...now go to your room until you can behave like a grownup.
Well... Sorry, Wilby!
I didn't mean anything bad when I replied to your post (the one addressed to Carnot)..
I think you did the similar thing (replying to someones post without the explicit call) in the past?
I'm not interested in fights, so I'll try to avoid making the same mistake in the future.
Quote from: spinner on January 14, 2009, 09:06:41 AM
Well... Sorry, Wilby!
I didn't mean anything bad when I replied to your post (the one addressed to Carnot)..
I think you did the similar thing (replying to someones post without the explicit call) in the past?
I'm not interested in fights, so I'll try to avoid making the same mistake in the future.
i know, you just like to state the obvious, regardless of whether or not you are actually being spoken to at the time, don't you captain?
spinner maybe i have, aren't you doing the same at this very moment? so again, one more time for the cheap seats, shut up.
what i surely haven't done and surely won't do is, when someone tells me i'm interrupting or that their comment wasn't addressed to me, i'm not gonna reply with some asinine idea of how "it's an open forum"... ::)
No matter what law you follow it still needs to conform to the law of economics. There's a reason the ICE is only 25% eff. Sure you can increase the compression ratio and lean it out to get 50% eff but put it in the hands of everyday people and it won't last more that a week. Your big hurdle is economics and the material its made of.
Thank you, Carbide,
For bringing us back to the main focus of this thread. Which is that great strides are possible in energy production without trying to violate existing laws of physics.
And, yes, your point is well taken, that in the final analysis, we have to have a product that serves well in its intended use. That includes durability and cost as well as energy efficiency, etc.
Maybe it's timely to review the brake efficiencies of present-day heat engines. Here is my list--
Traditional car engine..........................25%
Best gas cars today (e.g., Prius)........30% ("new" Prius is higher?)
Best diesel cars..................................35%
Highway truck engines........................45%
Large marine 2-stroke diesels...........50%
Power plant NG combined cycle.......55% or more.
I was reading a little about Sadi Carnot last night. It was his father that probably should get credit for stating the first law. Sadi published his new theory in 1824. He died when 36 years old, from Cholera (in 1831?). His new science was far from worked out, and much of the cleanup was done shortly after by Emile Clapeyron (1834) and Lame (first name?) in 1836. The science of thermodynamics began to be widely known in the 1850s, and not long after Rudolph Diesel learned it and devised the most efficient heat engine ever, even to this day. Diesel apparently believed that some day his engine would reach 60% efficiency. And, we are almost there.
Ernie Rogers
Quote from: Carbide_Tipped on January 14, 2009, 01:47:54 PM
No matter what law you follow it still needs to conform to the law of economics. There's a reason the ICE is only 25% eff. Sure you can increase the compression ratio and lean it out to get 50% eff but put it in the hands of everyday people and it won't last more that a week. Your big hurdle is economics and the material its made of.
I am replying only to the topic and have not had time to read this thread.
The textbooks are not right. I will give an example. If a permanent magnet's field of flux could be manufactured to pulse, then we would have overunity since the magnetic field of flux was changing.
I'll describe what I believe the magnetic field of flux is. Let's say you have an AC motor. If you could put enough energy into this motor where the motor is rotating so fast that the alternating current is no longer alternating but is stationary in our reference frame, then you would have no current flow or electricty. You would then have a continuous flow of magnetic flux. Also, at this point the motor wouldn't be rotating in our frame of reference either. Once the power source is disconnected to this motor, then you would have a permanent magnet motor. A permanent magnet is Zero Point Energy in our reference frame and is the Infinite Point Energy in it's own reference frame.
For us to get overunity, then we must manufacture a permanent magnet in a way that the north and south poles are constantly flipping, alternating, or pulsing similar to the permanent magnet motor described above. Just a thought.
Quote from: gravityblock on February 12, 2009, 08:56:36 PM
I am replying only to the topic and have not had time to read this thread.
The textbooks are not right. I will give an example. If a permanent magnet's field of flux could be manufactured to pulse, then we would have overunity since the magnetic field of flux was changing.
If only we could... then, we would.... ;)
Quote
I'll describe what I believe the magnetic field of flux is. Let's say you have an AC motor. If you could put enough energy into this motor where the motor is rotating so fast that the alternating current is no longer alternating but is stationary in our reference frame, then you would have no current flow or electricty. You would then have a continuous flow of magnetic flux. Also, at this point the motor wouldn't be rotating in our frame of reference either. Once the power source is disconnected to this motor, then you would have a permanent magnet motor. A permanent magnet is Zero Point Energy in our reference frame and is the Infinite Point Energy in it's own reference frame.
Ah....
Quote
For us to get overunity, then we must manufacture a permanent magnet in a way that the north and south poles are constantly flipping, alternating, or pulsing similar to the permanent magnet motor described above. Just a thought.
That would be nice!
Cheers!
Burrrrrp!
Was that a brain fart or what ?
Cheers,
Dean
What if the Obama stimulus package succeeds? Will that prove the text book wrong? After all the text says no stimulus needed for open markets, let them run their course.
Quote from: flyag1 on February 13, 2009, 10:06:46 PM
What if the Obama stimulus package succeeds? Will that prove the text book wrong? After all the text says no stimulus needed for open markets, let them run their course.
Oh, that is off-topic!
We are discussing SCIENCE, not witchcraft. :o
Ernie Rogers
Quote from: gravityblock
The textbooks are not right. I will give an example. If a permanent magnet's field of flux could be manufactured to pulse, then we would have overunity since the magnetic field of flux was changing.
Quote from: spinner on February 13, 2009, 05:50:27 PM
If only we could... then, we would.... ;)
Ah....That would be nice!
Cheers!
Maybe research magnetic semiconductors. This is a material that can switch between a magnet and a semiconductor or a non-magnet. They are researching this for quantum computing, for storage devices, for RAM, etc and are forgetting about being applied to overunity purposes. This is also known as spintronics. Maybe this won't allow for a magnet to be pulsed, but it sure does sound like it has the capabilities if it were manufactured for a different purpose other than computing.
Just because we can't do this right now, doesn't mean it can't be done in the future, especially with nano technology around the corner. I have researched how permanent magnets are manufactured and I personally don't see why the magnetic domains or moments can't be made to switch between a conductor and an insulator. But then again, what do I know.