Open Systems

[tinman]

MileHigh

Tinman, using the concept of boundaries for analyzing these types of systems is absolutely real and is a common practice.  Your problem is that when you encounter something new that you never heard of is that you will reject it out of hand.  Then the concept has to be pushed and reinforced on you over and over until you eventually accept it.

Take a look at MarkE's diagram of these boundaries MH,and tell me which one of these boundaries are we to use on such a system?. Do we just pic and choose,or do we let the guru's pick the one that discounts any excess energy-->as this happens far to often. The boundary between two systems is set where as one system dose not impart or influence the other in any way.

Instead of just rejecting a concept because don't understand it and you want to reject it and you don't like it, why don't you accept it and then try to use the concept to advance your own argument?

As above-->which boundary shall i use out of the many presented.

It's up to you to make an effort to learn instead of this push-back all the time.  I have seen you reject legitimate concepts over and over just because you are not aware of them.  Every time you put up a barrier, all that you do is slow yourself down.

Your legitimate concepts are just word's. No one has shown me yet these laws being applied to the systems i present. What has been adopted here is the !one fits all! bullshit.

It goes right back to five or more years ago.  You were making very very simple circuits and demos and almost every time you were convinced that your latest demo was "something that conventional electrical engineering does not understand."  It was never the case, ever.  I think you know Mongrel Shark on YouTube.  About 1 1/2 years ago I got into a discussion with him.  He is a nice guy but he was just beginning his exploration in electronics.  I said a few things to him that knocked him off balance because he wasn't understanding.  He said something like "I don't have the time to teach you" and then he blocked me.  He was making all of the classic "free energy electronics experimenter" mistakes because he was believing a lot of the BS myths out there.  There is nothing more frustrating than seeing a guy that is so sure of himself but he may have only touched a scope for the first time three months before.

We all have our strong points and weak point's. I am an engineer by trade,and have worked with pneumatic systems for many year's,and i have seen gas temperatures rise within pneumatic cyliders to be far greater than the temperature of the supply gas when that cylider is made to do work. If there is a rise in temperature/pressure and volume,then there is a rise in energy-->not a fall.All the test i have seen in regards to these ideal gas laws are not even close to being performed in a way that represents this situation. This is another !one fits all! claim,and it simply isnt true.

Before you discount the concept of setting up boundaries for analyzing systems, why don't you spend a few hours looking the material up online and reading about it and pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps?  Your regular push-back only is to your own detriment.  Mark is not perfect, but he really knows his stuff.  Why should he have to expend 10 times the energy to get you to absorb a concept as compared to a conventional classroom setting where the teacher teaches the material once and then the student does his own follow-up work to learn and fully understand the material?  The student may come back with some follow-up questions which is fine, but the student doesn't just sit there and push back.

We were taught many things in school that do not reflect actual events. Take for instance the earth orbiting around the sun-->how wrong was that. How in hell can the earth orbit around a sun that is moving. So you can listen to a teacher that teaches incorrect description's,or you listen and learn on the job. When some one is trying to tell you that what you have been seeing right before your eyes for the past 13 years is incorrect,then it's time for a new teacher.

From guru's(most) we see word salads,googlegasms and palava-->but we never see any actual devices being tested by said people. Poynt and TK are what i would call !the teachers that make an effort!,the rest just rely on what they read,that really has nothing to do with the DUT-->its just that!one fits all! rubbish. Well one dosnt fit all,and a ram doing work is one of those situations where one dosnt fit all. When you are going to use some scientific method to determond a systems outcome,then make sure that data was obtained around the DUT-->not some other device that dosnt represent your DUT.

[MarkE]

let me guess-it is you that will define this boundary? lol

If you think that you have not been paying attention.  I did not say "I".  I did not say some authority.  I said "one".  For your device, it is you who needs to define what is inside whatever collection of things that together you wish to evaluate and what is the outside world.

That is correct,and that same accounting is true regardless of wether the solar panel is there or not. If i switch on a light in an empty room,the light will consume X amount of energy,and will disipate that same amount of energy. If i place a chair in the room,has any of the before mentioned values change in regard to energy in and out of that light bulb?-->no.

For all practical purposes, of course.

That is correct,but it still is an accounted for energy,and dose not reflect on the source.

This idea of thinking that there is a strong reflection is a strawman of your invention.  No one has argued such a position.

No energy is lost when the ram is used to perform work on the open system.The energy contained within the vessel and ram will remain the same regardless of wether a resistance is placed on that ram or not.

The system consisting of the pressure vessel and the ram cylinder absolutely gives up the work transferred to the outside world.  This is the key point that you have been missing.  It happens just as the battery transfers energy to the lamp, and the lamp to space surrounding it, and the solar panel to the resistor that loads it.  I accept that you will continue to reject this despite countless references backing it up until you perform your experiments with proper measurements.

Are you going to be amazed if you get say 60mW from a solar panel from 5W into your light bulb because you misinterpret the solar panel's specifications?
Are you suggesting or implying that i didnt take into acount the wave lengths of light that the solar panel will opperate on,or the wave lengths of light that the incandecent bulb put's out? That would be your mistake.

Since you only stated a set of presumed coefficients and a presumed result as part of an argument I could only guess as to where you intend to go.

There are no losses,only transformations-->maybe you should place some of your boundaries around these systems that you consider to be !!loosing!! energy,and then you will see that the energy is still there-->it's never lost.

Are you having trouble with the word "lost"?  I did not say "destroyed".  Electricity converted to heat is a loss. The energy is still there, you can't make or destroy the stuff, but it is no longer in a useful form.

Unless of course you have transparent solar panel's. Let me guess,you think there is no such thing?.
The posabilities within.

You do understand don't you that every bit of light energy and then some that any one such panel converts to electricity does not continue on as light?

[Low-Q]

The end result of such a scheme is  the equivalent of a heat engine operating with an efficiency dictated by the reservoirs at the highest and lowest temperatures. It does not and can not ever give rise to a self running system where the heat recovered by the heat pump is in excess of the heat required to drive the rest of the system.

Agree. That is what I meant.

The efficiency of the heat pump is at a maximum when the temperature of the hot and cold reservoir  is at a minimum. The opposite is true for the heat engine. Combine those two facts together and the result given above can be deduced.

Agree, and thanks for the simple, but well put explanation :-)


Vidar

[tinman]

  .    I did not say "destroyed".    but it is no longer in a useful form.

If you think that you have not been paying attention.  I did not say "I".  I did not say some authority.  I said "one".  For your device, it is you who needs to define what is inside whatever collection of things that together you wish to evaluate and what is the outside world.

And this boundary i have set !how many! times now?.

For all practical purposes, of course.This idea of thinking that there is a strong reflection is a strawman of your invention.

And again-->what reflection. Please copy and paste this reflection i spoke off. It was you that brought up the reflection issue,not i.

.

The system consisting of the pressure vessel and the ram cylinder absolutely gives up the work transferred to the outside world.

I think you have the wrong picture set in your head about this system,so i will try once again to explain.
The vessel supplies the compressed gas to the ram. First test is performed with no resistance placed apon the ram. The valve is opened,and the ram extends to it's full travel without resistance(other than the frictional resistance of the piston seals against the cylinder wall). The pressure avaliable to the ram is set at say 50psi gauge pressure via a regulator(<-- important to remember).
So the pressure in the ram only reaches it's maximum value once the ram has traveled it's full distance. We can now take a temperature reading of the gas in the vessel and ram,along with a pressure reading of the vessel-->we already know the ram will have a pressure of 50psi,as it is regulated.
Test 2-Now we run the test again,but this time a high resistance is placed apon the ram.So now the ram reaches it's maximum pressure at the begining of it's travel-not the end.Once the ram has traveled to it's limit,you once again take a temperature reading of the gas inside the ram and vessel,and also the pressure of the gas inside the vessel-->we know the ram pressure is 50psi.

At this point,all your ideal gas laws and boyles law fall apart,because you now find that the temperature of the gas inside the ram cylinder is higher in test 2 than it was in test 1.You also find that the pressure in the supply vessel hasnt dropped as much in test 2 as it did in test 1. The reason for this is that the gas temperature in the ram in test 2 is higher,and thus the gas has expanded more so than it did in test 1,and so not as much gas was required from the vessel in test 2 as it was in test one. So now your scratching your head,trying to work out how making that gas do work actually used less avaliable energy within the gas than that as if there were no work done by the gas at all. Now i know (without doubt)that you will argue with this,as it dosnt comply with your wonderful law's,and the reason for this is because the !one fit's all! just dosnt fit all.

As i stated before,i have seen this happen for over 13 years on the job. Maybe you should ring the engineer and maintenance department at BHP,and tell them all there temperature sensors are reading wrong. How is it that the supply gas temperature can be 76*C(from the vessel),and yet the gas temperature within the ram's can reach a temperature of over 100*C-->at which point the coolers come on.You see the same thing in electrical flow-->what happens when you add a resistance-->yes,you generate heat.

Are you having trouble with the word "lost"?

Not at all. I think it more a case that you are having trouble with correct outcomes of different system's,as you insist that the !one fits all! stand's-->it dose not. It's much the same as the planets orbit the sun-->they do not.

Since you only stated a set of presumed coefficients and a presumed result as part of an argument I could only guess as to where you intend to go.

And yet you were happy to insinuate that-Quote: because you misinterpret the solar panel's specifications?
So you say that i misinterpret,and yet you were going on presumptions.

Electricity converted to heat is a loss.

Not if it's heat you want-->and if you go back to the beginig of this thread,you will see that heat is one of the very things we are trying to generate-->as is the case with the ram experiment.

You do understand don't you that every bit of light energy and then some that any one such panel converts to electricity does not continue on as light?

I do. But are you able to calculate the  energy from that small portion of light that is !lost!when the solar panel is within that light? If i replace the solar panel with a piece of wood the same size,we still loose that small amount of light. How much energy can we generate from that small piece of wood?.

The energy is still there, you can't make or destroy the stuff,

You know this for sure?. I could ask as to where the energy within the universe came from in the begining,but i think that is beyond any ones means to explain. Did it just appear out of nothing?

[MarkE]

And this boundary i have set !how many! times now?.

You have counted energy crossing in and crossing out using the same sign:  IE double counting.

And again-->what reflection. Please copy and paste this reflection i spoke off. It was you that brought up the reflection issue,not i.

Really?  Where and when did I make such a claim?

.I think you have the wrong picture set in your head about this system,so i will try once again to explain.
The vessel supplies the compressed gas to the ram. First test is performed with no resistance placed apon the ram. The valve is opened,and the ram extends to it's full travel without resistance(other than the frictional resistance of the piston seals against the cylinder wall). The pressure avaliable to the ram is set at say 50psi gauge pressure via a regulator(<-- important to remember).
So the pressure in the ram only reaches it's maximum value once the ram has traveled it's full distance. We can now take a temperature reading of the gas in the vessel and ram,along with a pressure reading of the vessel-->we already know the ram will have a pressure of 50psi,as it is regulated.

Problem #1.  You need to know the pressure, temperature, volume and gas composition of both volumes before you open the valve.  That tells you the starting energy.
Problem #2.  Regulators only regulate if there is a gas flow.  A restriction only creates a pressure drop when there is flow.  So, the regulator does not guarantee pressure.  You need pressure gauges / sensors to know the pressure.
Problem #3.  You need to know the pressure, temperature, volume and gas composition of both volumes immediately after you finish the stroke.  That tells you the ending energy. 

Test 2-Now we run the test again,but this time a high resistance is placed apon the ram.So now the ram reaches it's maximum pressure at the begining of it's travel-not the end.Once the ram has traveled to it's limit,you once again take a temperature reading of the gas inside the ram and vessel,and also the pressure of the gas inside the vessel-->we know the ram pressure is 50psi.

At this point,all your ideal gas laws and boyles law fall apart,because you now find that the temperature of the gas inside the ram cylinder is higher in test 2 than it was in test 1.You also find that the pressure in the supply vessel hasnt dropped as much in test 2 as it did in test 1.

GIGO.  You didn't know the energy when you started.  You didn't determine the energy when you ended because you incorrectly assumed that the pressure was the regulator setting.  So go back to Square One, instrument so that you can determine the actual starting and ending energies and then see if you still think you observe work being done for free.

The reason for this is that the gas temperature in the ram in test 2 is higher,and thus the gas has expanded more so than it did in test 1,and so not as much gas was required from the vessel in test 2 as it was in test one. So now your scratching your head,trying to work out how making that gas do work actually used less avaliable energy within the gas than that as if there were no work done by the gas at all. Now i know (without doubt)that you will argue with this,as it dosnt comply with your wonderful law's,and the reason for this is because the !one fit's all! just dosnt fit all.

Like I said: From a measurement standpoint it is GIGO.

As i stated before,i have seen this happen for over 13 years on the job. Maybe you should ring the engineer and maintenance department at BHP,and tell them all there temperature sensors are reading wrong. How is it that the supply gas temperature can be 76*C(from the vessel),and yet the gas temperature within the ram's can reach a temperature of over 100*C-->at which point the coolers come on.

The reason is well known:  You are removing energy from the supply and putting it into the ram gas volume.

You see the same thing in electrical flow-->what happens when you add a resistance-->yes,you generate heat.

Is your thesis here that more resistance or less resistance gives rise to the most heat evolution in the resistor?  Any amount of resistance less than infinity but greater than zero evolves more heat in the resistor than an infinite or zero resistance.  Any value less than infinity removes energy from the source.

Not at all. I think it more a case that you are having trouble with correct outcomes of different system's,as you insist that the !one fits all! stand's-->it dose not. It's much the same as the planets orbit the sun-->they do not.

I am sorry, but you need to review your Kepler.

And yet you were happy to insinuate that-Quote: because you misinterpret the solar panel's specifications?

If you think that you measure an anomaly in the electricity output that would be due to a misinterpretation of the specifications.  I stand by my statement.

So you say that i misinterpret,and yet you were going on presumptions.

Actually it's your experiment's presumptions that have lead you to GIGO.

Not if it's heat you want-->and if you go back to the beginig of this thread,you will see that heat is one of the very things we are trying to generate-->as is the case with the ram experiment.
I do. But are you able to calculate the  energy from that small portion of light that is !lost!when the solar panel is within that light? If i replace the solar panel with a piece of wood the same size,we still loose that small amount of light. How much energy can we generate from that small piece of wood?.

Solid geometry is well understood.

You know this for sure?. I could ask as to where the energy within the universe came from in the begining,but i think that is beyond any ones means to explain. Did it just appear out of nothing?

Once again you are not paying attention.  I have explained the difference between "loss" and "destroyed".  Setting up strawman arguments does not help your case.