Open Systems

[tinman]

Absolutely amazing! Using this incredible theoretical breakthrough I have been able to design a brand new ICE engine. It only requires a little bit of petrol to start the cycle and then it runs forever!.. The oil industry is doomed..!

SARCASTIC CLOWN.

Sorry for sounding patronizing but you have absolutely zero clue about thermodynamics. When a gas expands and does external  work heat is lost from the gas. Until you can understand why that is you have no hope of understanding why you device can never work.

Until you understand the whole workings of the completed device,insted of jumping in with rubbish half way through showing one part of the device,you should keep you inaccurate bable to your self.
This is part of a bouyancy/gravity devcice,and the ram is to show the expanding bladder that will be part of this device as a whole. So Einstein,let me ask you this. If we take a balloon and fill it with air,will it have a greater upward force when at 20 meters below the sea when the gas is more compressed inside the balloon,or will it have more upward force when at 5 meters below the sea where the gas inside the balloon is less compressed?. So at 20 meters below sea level,the balloon may have a displacement area of say(hypothetical)1 cubic foot,and at 5 meters it may have a displacement area of say(hypothetical)1.5 cubic feet. So which now has the potential of producing the greater amount of energy Einstein-->the expanded gas,or the more compressed gas?.
Until you understand the complete workings of the device,please keep your idiotic insults to your self.

TinMan.

[tinman]

This has been a long and frustrating journey for all.  I think that tinman is honest in his intentions.  If it is at all possible, I would like to carry this through to where he can learn the truth from his experiments.  With that in mind, I ask for additional patience with tinman.

Please make sure that you read my last comment to Mr Einstein Mark,as i think you are thinking along the wrong lines here. You may need to go back to the start,and refresh on the fact that this device as a whole is a bouyancy/gravity device. The ram is to simulate an expanding bouyant device,but in this first test,it will have a resistive force applied to it to show that an external force dose not change the end result of the ram being filled with gas from the vessel. If the vessel supplies the ram with the gas required to reach say 50psi inside that ram when fully extended,then making that ram do work will not result in a further reduction of energy within the gas.-->remember at the start the gas that was to be used was HHO.

Now,i need to know if you can convert a given volume of gas at a set pressure and temerature to joules of energy?. This will be needed when calculating total energy at the start of the test,and total energy at the end of the test.

[LibreEnergia]

SARCASTIC CLOWN.

Until you understand the whole workings of the completed device,insted of jumping in with rubbish half way through showing one part of the device,you should keep you inaccurate bable to your self.
This is part of a bouyancy/gravity devcice,and the ram is to show the expanding bladder that will be part of this device as a whole. So Einstein,let me ask you this. If we take a balloon and fill it with air,will it have a greater upward force when at 20 meters below the sea when the gas is more compressed inside the balloon,or will it have more upward force when at 5 meters below the sea where the gas inside the balloon is less compressed?. So at 20 meters below sea level,the balloon may have a displacement area of say(hypothetical)1 cubic foot,and at 5 meters it may have a displacement area of say(hypothetical)1.5 cubic feet. So which now has the potential of producing the greater amount of energy Einstein-->the expanded gas,or the more compressed gas?.
Until you understand the complete workings of the device,please keep your idiotic insults to your self.

TinMan.

At some stage in the future you will realise you have made a fundamental error in your understanding of the nature of the conversion of heat to work and vice versa.

I'm only actually trying to help you from wasting your time on this unworkable concept.

[tinman]

At some stage in the future you will realise you have made a fundamental error in your understanding of the nature of the conversion of heat to work and vice versa.

I'm only actually trying to help you from wasting your time on this unworkable concept.

There is no loss or gain in a closed system,the gain comes from the open half of the system,which in turn come from nature. If we adopt your attitude LE,we will go no further than we already have. Man puts in X amount of energy to make a solar pannel,and nature returns this X amout of energy-->plus a whole lot more.The closed system in this case is the solar pannel/charge controller/battery/load. The open part of the system is the sun. Is the sun effected by any load placed on the solar pannels output? NO,and neither is the gases energy effected by an external resistance placed apon the ram-the open part of the system as a whole.

[Pirate88179]

There is no loss or gain in a closed system,the gain comes from the open half of the system,which in turn come from nature. If we adopt your attitude LE,we will go no further than we already have. Man puts in X amount of energy to make a solar pannel,and nature returns this X amout of energy-->plus a whole lot more.The closed system in this case is the solar pannel/charge controller/battery/load. The open part of the system is the sun. Is the sun effected by any load placed on the solar pannels output? NO,and neither is the gases energy effected by an external resistance placed apon the ram-the open part of the system as a whole.

Funny you should mention the sun.  I have no link to this but could probably find it...a "study" (done by global warming believer liberals) cautions against adopting solar panels world wide as this would "stress" the sun and cause it to burn out much earlier than it normally would.

I kid you not.  Now I, of course, do not believe this for a minute but, someone, or some people got funded by the US Gov. and actually came up with this crap!!  This reminds me of the "study" that warned against the use of hydrogen powered cars as it would deplete the world's water supply.  My question would be...where is the water going?  Into space?

Anyway, just wanted to share this stuff.

Bill