Tesla's Ambient Heat Engine Theory - Right or Wrong ?

[allcanadian]

First we should understand that the people who formulated the laws of thermodynamics had no idea what heat was, they did not understand what it was any more than a monkey understands what a stealth bomber is.
Now let's look at the second law --

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium -- the state of maximum entropy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible

The Entropy of an isolated system never decreases, this means if we put something in a closed box isolated from everything else then the energy can neither increase or decrease. That sounds reasonable enough and they seem to be simply stating the obvious but a person has to ask -- why in the hell do they insist on putting everything inside a closed box?, or as they call it an isolated system. Nature does not use isolated systems nor closed boxes and the concept is absurd.

Next we could ask what is Entropy--

Entropy is an extensive thermodynamic property that is the measure of a system's thermal energy per unit temperature that is unavailable for doing useful work. Perhaps the most familiar manifestation of entropy is that, following the laws of thermodynamics, entropy of a closed system always increases and in heat transfer situations, heat energy is transferred from higher temperature components to lower temperature components.

Now what is wrong with this statement?, well they are ranting on about closed systems again so we can just ignore that nonsense however they say Entropy is a measure of a systems thermal energy that is unavailable for doing useful work. Useful work?, what if the work is not useful what then? and how could some energy be unavaliable to do this useful work?. If I did not know better I would say these people are confused and maybe they were drunk when they wrote this.

In fact heat is not something it is a property of something and saying an object is hot or has heat in it is kind of like saying water is wet. Now I have to wonder why all these scientists a couple hundred years ago started treating a property of something as something in itself?. Should I create a law saying the wetness of the water must flow from the top of the wave to the bottom, well no that is ridiculous.

Heat is the magnitude of oscillation of particles due to Electromagnetic Energy and it just so happens that when we cram enough of these particles together we get something we call tangible matter. This is why this supposed "heat" can travel bilions of miles from our Sun through outer-space at near absolute zero and "heat" the other planets. Does anybody find that strange?, that this supposed heat can travel through a medium near absolute zero(-273 C) and still be perfectly conserved.
Well there is no such thing as heat as heat is a property of matter not something in itself and it always starts as EM energy in matter it is then transferred as EM waves and always ends in matter as EM energy.

So one has to ask why all this nonsense about thermodynamics with all it's absurd terminology referring the properties of something as something in itself and unintelligible laws when we could simply use the laws of electrodynamics which explains everything perfectly well in an intelligent manner, no closed boxes required. You see the issue here is that a couple hundred years ago a bunch of old farts who really had no idea what they were dealing with made up some laws to explain things so they made more sense. They though heat was a fluid -- they were wrong, they thought it flowed from place to place like a fluid--they were wrong, they thought it was something in itself--they were wrong.

It is no wonder nobody can really understand anything because it makes no sense in this day and age when we should know better. Should we teach our children the same old archaic BS people were teaching their children 100 years ago?. This is not progress, it is not a sign of intelligence and is the reason almost no real progress has been made in this field of technology in the last 80 years. If you want to know what they forgot to mention in their thermodynamics textbooks research electrostatic cooling, as well nantenna technology can convert EM energy in the infrared wavelengths (heat) directly into electrical energy -- no silly heat engines nor closed boxes required.

AC

[allcanadian]

Hello Tom

Conceive, for the sake of illustration, [a cylindrical] enclosure T, as illustrated in diagram b, such that energy could not be transferred across it except through a channel or path O, and that, by some means or other, in this enclosure a medium were maintained which would have little energy, and that on the outer side of the same there would be the ordinary ambient medium with much energy.  Under these assumptions the energy would flow through the path O, as indicated by the arrow, and might then be converted on its passage into some other form of energy.

I read this lecture many years ago and in the surrounding paragraphs Tesla gives one example which I believe he intended to be taken literally. We have a vessel at the bottom of a lake with a pipe extending upwards from the vessel to the atmosphere above the surface of the lake. There is a hole in the vessel and as Tesla states we cannot win because the energy gained by the water flowing in can never be more than the energy required to pump the same water out. This is the same reasoning behind the laws of thermodynamics and they appear to hold because they are simplistic rules created by simple minds, Tesla was not one of them. 

Now fully consider this riddle, how can you use less energy pumping the water out of the vessel than you gained by letting it flow in?. Tesla gave us the answer in this lecture and it is simple -- you cannot pump the water out that is absurd, why in the hell would anyone in their right mind try to pump the water out?. Tesla said the medium must undergo a transformation, the medium cannot leave in the same state it came in and Tesla said the water should be transformed into Hydrogen and Oxygen gas. If we consider this suggestion then we have a vessel at the bottom of the lake vented to atmosphere, the inside of the vessel is at atmospheric pressure and water flows into the vessel through a turbine generator. The water in the vessel is then transformed into Hydrogen and Oxygen gas by an electrolyser which is powered by the turbine generator. The Hydrogen and Oxygen gas then travel up the pipe to atmospheric conditions above the surface of the lake where they are burned to produce even more electrical energy and the exhaust is water.   

I imagine some are thinking --can that work?, surely there must be some law somewhere which states this cannot work. About 15 years ago when I read this lecture I did the math using conservative parameters and of course it does work just as Tesla implied, I imagine he did the math in his head while I used a computer. The answer is simple and obvious, on one side of the turbine is water under pressure and on the other side gasses(O2, H2) at near atmospheric pressure and if the turbine generator cannot disassociate all the water then we simply find a deeper lake which will generate more power because the water pressure increases with depth on the water side. Now if the turbine generator can supply enough power to the electrolyser to disassociate all water then what of all that H2 and O2 gas at the top of the pipe at the surface?.   

At this point many might be scatching their heads and asking themselves where did the energy come from?. It would seem obvious however I will default to the same BS excuse most experts tend to use.  Occam's Razor --"among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected" -- Do the math   AC

[allcanadian]

@Gianna

The 'closed boxes' you seem to abhor are simply a tool. As engineers we know it is impossible to physically create a perfectly adiabatic process as represented by a closed box.  However, we do know for sure that the results of any measuring any physical process will, in the limit, approach the theoretical values imposed by thermodynamic theory.

Yes as an engineer I understand this perfectly well and if everyone treated this "tool" as a tool then I would have no issue with it. However most do not treat it as a tool do they?, they imply you cannot get more energy out than you put into a system and use this notion in a universal context. They use the conservation of energy and mass in a closed system to justify the notion that we cannot extract energy from an open system. Why is it 99% of the content on the internet does this, could you explain this for me?.

It is akin to the situation with gravity. Physicists may not know exactly what it IS, but that doesn't stop them using Newton or Einstein to calculate the effects it has.

I would agree a good physicist would say they do not know what Gravity is just as they do not know what a Magnetic or Electric field is fundamentally. Not what it does but what it actually is in reality, now if we do not know what something is fundamentally do you think we should go around telling everyone that we know exactly what must happen in every case?, how would a person know what would happen in every single case everywhere in the universe for all time?, why they would have to be some kind of all knowing all seeing god wouldn't they?.
You see when a person states "you cannot extract energy from a magnetic field"  I would think knowing what a magnetic field is might be a deciding factor otherwise were just be speculating. As you may know speculation is not a fact, they are not the same thing, which is why it should be treated as such.

AC

[Tom Booth]

...If you want to know what they forgot to mention in their thermodynamics textbooks research electrostatic cooling, as well nantenna technology ...

AC

Thanks, I haven't come across these before. When I Googled nantenna Google insisted it was a miss-spelling and showed results for antenna.

Ah! Nano-antenna. I did come across some stuff about nanotechnology being used to improve the efficiency of solar panels -possibly a year or two ago. but it may be that there was some other principle involved. At any rate, I don't think they were calling it "nantenna" at the time.

[picowatt]

Thanks, I haven't come across these before. When I Googled nantenna Google insisted it was a miss-spelling and showed results for antenna.

Ah! Nano-antenna. I did come across some stuff about nanotechnology being used to improve the efficiency of solar panels -possibly a year or two ago. but it may be that there was some other principle involved. At any rate, I don't think they were calling it "nantenna" at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nantenna