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

[allcanadian]

Tom
Imagine what might happen if one wire was positioned exactly on the crest of an EM wave while another wire was spaced so that it fell exactly on the trough of an EM wave. The spacing of the wire must be at the wavelength crest and trough (1/2 wavelength) and the wire diameter much smaller than than a 1\4 wavelength. In which case any EM wavelength including heat and light can be converted directly to electrical energy. This is the promise of nano-technology in that we do not have to accept things the way they are and we can engineer materials, Meta-materials, to do things no other materials can.

Some materials bend Em waves around an object rendering it invisible to those EM waves, some materials can conduct then not and some new materials are attracted or repelled by magnetic fields then these properties can be switched off. Can you imagine a material which interacts with a magnetic field in one instance then is switched off in the next so that it has no magnetic properties. Engineered materials with properties which are variable by design, intelligent design.
Ferrofluid is a good example and is fluid outside the presence of a magnetic field yet approaches solidity within it.

It's kind of funny that most experts 50 or so years ago would have stated categorically that this was impossible and in the realm of fantasy and crackpots but here it is. This is the problem with many experts, they try to define reality within the confines of their own understanding so much that they start to honestly believe what they think must be the only reality there is which is a form of delusion. As such I like to keep an open mind or objectivity about these things because the only real facts we have suggest we do not know everything, in fact they suggest we have not even begun to scratch the surface of what is possible.

Regards
AC

[Tom Booth]

Hello Tom

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...

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. ...

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,... ...and if the turbine generator cannot disassociate all the water then we simply find a deeper lake which will generate more power....  ...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?.   

...Do the math   AC

Thanks, this gives me a different perspective. When reading Tesla's statement in this regard, I considered it as having been made for illustrative purposes only.

Water in powering a turbine does not of itself automatically dissociate into Hydrogen and Oxygen. The power generated would have to be used for that purpose. Assuming however that this is possible, it seems to me that the lake would have to be extremely deep and the water pressure extremely high so that the flow of water entering the system could be kept to a minimum. The electrolyzer would also have to be very efficient so as to be able to convert all of the water as fast as it flowed in. It seems to, that if all this could be accomplished, the water stream powering the turbine would have such force that the turbine would have to be of some special construction to be able to withstand such high pressures. In the end, very little energy would be gained, as practically, if not all the energy would be used up in the electrolysis, however there is the HHO which, it seems, might turn all this to some advantage.

I still don't think that Tesla was putting this idea forward as anything more that an illustration. The major drawback of the idea, from my own perspective is I don't have a deep lake in my back yard, and if I did, I certainly wouldn't have the means to build an underwater bunker at the bottom of it.

I think Tesla's point in using the illustration was that unlike water which is not automatically decomposed into its gaseous elements at the point of energy conversion heat as a form of energy, (rather than a fluid) IS converted or can be converted obviating any necessity that it be removed.

Heat is removed in the process of conversion itself AS-IF, the water, in giving up its energy to the turbine automatically decomposed into its elements in the process.

Another problem with the tank at the bottom of the lake idea, I think, is that if there is not enough energy to electrolyze the water at a shallow depth and so you sink the tank deeper, so as to resolve the problem, not only is the water pressure going to increase but the atmospheric pressure working against the operation will increase proportionately, would there actually be any gain by taking the whole operation deeper ?

At any rate, of the two proposals, The tank in the lake vs the conversion of ambient heat, I would say that the conversion of ambient heat holds out more promise and should be easier to implement if it is in fact possible.

I also think that although Carnot's concept of heat was wrong, his basic conclusions were nevertheless pretty much correct. For example he gives us this insight:

Now if there were any method of using heat preferable to that which we have employed, that is to say, if it were possible that the caloric should produce, by any process whatever, a larger quantity of motive power than that produced in our first series of operations, it would be possible, by diverting a portion of this power, to effect a return of caloric, by the method just indicated, from the body B to the body A that is, from the refrigerator to the source and thus to re-establish things in their original state, and to put them in position to recommence an operation exactly similar to the first one, and so on : there would thus result not only the perpetual motion, but an indefinite creation of motive power without consumption of caloric or of any other agent whatsoever. Such a creation is entirely contrary to the ideas now accepted, to the laws of mechanics and of sound physics ; it is inadmissible.*

* The objection will perhaps here be made that perpetual motion has only been demonstrated to be impossible in the case of mechanical actions, and that it may not be so when we employ the agency of heat or of electricity; but can we conceive of the phenomena of heat and of electricity as due to any other cause than some motion of bodies, and, as such. should they not be subject to the general laws of mechanics? Besides do we not know a posteriori that all the attempts made to produce perpetual motion by any means whatever have been fruitless ; that no truly perpetual motion has ever been produced, meaning by that, a motion which continues indefinitely without change in the body used as an agent ?

We may hence conclude that the maximum motive power resulting from the use of steam is also the maximum motive power which can be obtained by any other means.

It seems he was groping towards the Kinetic theory even at this time (Reflections on the Motive Power of Heat - 1824)

Which theory he and others soon afterward adopted.

In other words, even though there was no transfer of a fluid "caloric", if "caloric" be replaced by "kinetic energy" we arrive at much the same result. At least most of the time. As far as Heat Engines are concerned.

For example, what is the difference if we transpose the two phrases in this paragraph:

"if it were possible that the caloric (Kinetic energy) should produce, by any process whatever, a larger quantity of motive power than that produced in our first series of operations, it would be possible, by diverting a portion of this power, to effect a return of caloric (kinetic energy), by the method just indicated, from the body B to the body A that is, from the refrigerator to the source and thus to re-establish things in their original state, and to put them in position to recommence an operation exactly similar to the first one, and so on : there would thus result not only the perpetual motion, but an indefinite creation of motive power without consumption of caloric (kinetic energy) or of any other agent whatsoever."

What happens to the argument ?

We can read "motive power" as "Kinetic energy" as well, ignoring the ambiguities this creates; the basic premise remains: You can't get more energy out than you put in.

But, if we read these 1800's sources carefully, when they speak of the operation of heat engines, they can't seem to really see beyond the Steam Engine. That is, a HEAT engine if we define heat in relative terms as a concentration of Kinetic Energy ABOVE the Ambient which is in general equilibrium.

That is, the assumption is that you have to MAKE the heat. Create a disturbance or imbalance in the "caloric". Build a fire.

If you then extract energy from the heat how ever you look at it, bringing it down to ambient, if you want to repeat the process IN A CLOSED LOOP. you will have to heat the "working fluid" up again. Make the water condensed out back into steam to recreate or maintain the imbalance. How else can you get energy out of heat than with heat ? To close the loop you'll have to put the kinetic energy back where it started. Right ?

Yes, Right. They were all right, Carnot, Clausius, Lord Kelvin, they all knew exactly what they were talking about. Logically, if you have to make heat to get it above ambient to use it ,and then you do use it and you end up with cold, you will have to heat the cold up again to get the heat to use it again. There is no way you can win.

Tesla scratched his head a little bit and said what if instead of using heat (above ambient), you make a "cold hole". Then you can use the heat of the ambient as it flows in naturally and you will never run out so you don't have to put it back. It is no longer a closed loop. It is a linear system.

Sunshine Hits the earth >>>> Hot Ambient > Heat > Heat converted to Pressure in a Heat engine > Motive Force (work) > Electricity Generation > Eventual heat dissipation into Outer Space >>>>>

It becomes a unidirectional flow. A temporary interruption of the flow of energy emanating from the sun to be utilized before it continues on its way to other planets. Not a closed loop, not a constant uphill battle to put the energy back up at a higher level to repeat a cycle. It isn't a cycle, its a flow like a river that can be intercepted so as to extract some energy.

Maybe.

At least it seems like there is some remote possibility it could work. Not sure how much energy you could produce that way but it certainly seems worth a try.

As far as I can see the idea was dismissed "posteriori". It's never been done before, therefore it can't be done, case closed.

So nobody has ever even bothered to try. At least I can find no history of anyone having ever put a heat engine in an ice box.

Until someone actually does the experiment, I wouldn't write it off as an impossibility.

When it was found, through actual experiment that Heat and Work were equivalent and interchangeable Lord Kelvin put forth the extraordinary argument:

"It is impossible, by means of inanimate material agency, to derive mechanical effect from any portion of matter by cooling it below the temperature of the coldest of the surrounding objects*

(In the footnote)

* If this axiom be denied for all temperatures it would have to be
admitted that a self-acting machine might be set to work and produce mechanical effect by cooling the sea or earth. with no limit but the total loss 
of heat from the earth and sea. or, in reality, from the whole material
world.

There continues the tacit belief that Heat is a material substance that if not in fact permanent as the "coloric" might instead be "consumed" and put entirely out of existence.

Tesla recognized the fallacy. Heat is energy and can be converted.

It is neither permanent, nor can it be "consumed" or entirely put out of existence.

There is no danger that Tesla's engine would cool down the planet or the entire universe. Heat turned into electricity and used would sooner or later re-emerge as heat. In incandescent lamps, cook stoves, space heaters, friction of moving parts etc. etc.

It seems there was an element of "fear of the unknown" at work at the time.

In another passage he appears to admit the possibility of a "self-acting engine" but then denies it:

"...Now it is obvious that A might be made to spend part of its work in working B backwards, and the whole might be made self-acting... We should thus have a self-acting machine, capable of drawing heat constantly from a body surrounded by others at a higher temperature, and converting it into mechanical effect. But this is contrary to the axiom."

I would say that an axiom is not an experimental proof.

To simply state "an airplane can't fly if it is heavier than air" does not make it true, but such a statement will nevertheless stand and be assumed to be true until someone with some temerity comes along and actually puts the effort into building such a machine and does the experiment to see if it is true or not.

[allcanadian]

Tom

Water in powering a turbine does not of itself automatically dissociate into Hydrogen and Oxygen. The power generated would have to be used for that purpose. Assuming however that this is possible, it seems to me that the lake would have to be extremely deep and the water pressure extremely high so that the flow of water entering the system could be kept to a minimum. The electrolyzer would also have to be very efficient so as to be able to convert all of the water as fast as it flowed in. It seems to, that if all this could be accomplished, the water stream powering the turbine would have such force that the turbine would have to be of some special construction to be able to withstand such high pressures. In the end, very little energy would be gained, as practically, if not all the energy would be used up in the electrolysis, however there is the HHO which, it seems, might turn all this to some advantage.

If memory serves me correct the tank in a lake scenario balanced at 30,000 feet of depth which make it completely impractical however that has no bearing on whether it works or not. I always found it comical that Kelvin and others said a self-acting engine was impossible then when Tesla gave them a simple example of how they were wrong they changed the context by saying it was impractical, as if the truth was a matter of practicality, priceless.

Now some might strongly disagree with my being overly critical of the scientific community so I will introduce a few relevant facts--
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685008/
A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices.

http://www.discovercreation.org/newsletters/ScientistsFalsifyResearchResults.htm
Scientists Invent Results:Times Online (June 4, 2009) headline reports that "One in seven scientists say colleagues fake data." That figure applies to serious breaches of "acceptable conduct by inventing results." The article went on to say that "46 per cent say that they have observed fellow scientists engage in 'questionable practices', such as presenting data selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in response to pressure from a funding source."

http://phys.org/news162795064.html
On average, across the surveys, around 2% of scientists admitted they had "fabricated" (made up), "falsified" or "altered" data to "improve the outcome" at least once, and up to 34% admitted to other questionable research practices including "failing to present data that contradict one's own previous research" and "dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/why_scientists_lie_and_what_to.html

The article went on to say that "46 per cent say that they have observed fellow scientists engage in 'questionable practices', such as presenting data selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in response to pressure from a funding source."

Imagine that, almost one half of the scientists changed their conclusions or presented data selectively because of peer pressure as well as dismissing data which contradicted their previous work and 72% engaged in other questionable research practices-- Oh dear we have problems in wonderland.

I find this comical because I work with professionals on a daily basis and can tell you as a fact they are no better than anyone you will meet on any street corner. They lie and cheat, some are alcoholics while others use drugs, they cheat on their wives and fabricate shit to cover up their mistakes. So why do some people put scientists and other professionals up on a pedestal as if they were some sort of god and science their religion?, it is absurd. I can guarantee you that if you knew these people you would think very differently of them and we have to take the good with the bad. Which is why we must always question their motives as well as their data in every case and this is what real science is all about -- the real facts.
As well there is a great deal of evidence which suggests that at no other time in history has science been so corrupt however it is not common knowledge. Corporate agendas dominate science and peer pressure to fall in line with the general opinion is rampant.
AC

[Tom Booth]

Of course this would work. One expression of it is a solar powered stirling engine.

Well...

That would be: Sunshine Hits solar powered stirling >> Heat > Heat converted to Pressure in a Heat engine > Motive Force (work) > Electricity Generation > Eventual heat dissipation into Outer Space >>>>>

Leaving out the intermediary of  > Hot Ambient > between Sun and heat engine.

Possibly a minor difference. Possibly not.

Using Solar Energy stored in the heat of the atmosphere would mean you could run the engine day AND NIGHT.

So why wouldn't it work ?

As far as I can figure, It won't work because in 1824 a guy named Carnot suggested rather alarmingly that such a thing was impossible and people believed him.

To be fair to Carnot though, when he said "perpetual motion" was impossible, his definition of perpetual motion should, perhaps, be kept in mind. I'm not quite sure if it would really apply. He wrote:

The general and philosophical acceptation of the words perpetual motion
should comprehend not only a motion capable of indefinite continuance
after it has been started, but also the action of an apparatus, of a set of
bodies, capable of creating motive power in an unlimited quantity, and of
setting in motion successively all the bodies of nature, if they are originally
at rest, and of destroying in them the principle of inertia, and finally capa-
ble of furnishing in itself all the forces necessary to move the entire uni-
verse, to prolong and to constantly accelerate its motion.

This seems something quite far and beyond what most people today might consider "perpetual motion". Something like this little machine perhaps:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq3K6Ma0wIU

I can hardly imagine this little heat engine... "creating motive power in an unlimited quantity" etc.

[bugler]

...

All Canadian, did you write the Kornelson transformer pdf?


If so could you tell us something about it?


(I pm you in energetic forum but  you don't answer).