Open Systems

[MarkE]

I see we are back to the insult's Mark,and here i thought you were starting to actually become human again-->my mistake.

Really?  You think that was an insult? Really?

Pirate,please believe me when i say it is not i that has a mental block. The block is actually coming from those that are blinded by the light!you could say. These are those that have no room for change,and assume that so called laws are set in stone,and apply to all systems in all configuration's. But you always see that when there numbers and laws dont start to add up,they revert to insult's. You see them say over and over that no work has been done,and yet the number's that MarkE crunched him self came up with a net energy gain of 10%-->and yes,work was done in the process. It take energy(work) to accelerate a mass-->gas has mas-->and the gas was accelerated through the venturi tube from a static ambiant point-->that is work being done by the gas(energy) stored in tank A. And did we loose energy when this work was done?,NO,we gained 10%. I could place a pile of beach sand below the venturi inlet,and it would suck that sand up,and displace it in tank B. Now,sand has a lot more mass per volume than air,so more work would be done-->but this still would not be satisfactory to the !laws of physics guru's.

Well Mark,would you care to entertain this mentally blocked person one more time-->just for laugh's ,in the way of some calculation's.

When you ask for calculations against set-ups that are not as you represent them, the results are GIGO.  You are free at any time to try and get your arrangements to do useful work in excess of the work that you put into them.  Let me know when you think you have done so, describe the set-up accurately and I will be happy to check your work.

Tank A starting pressure=40.2psi
Tank A starting temperature=22*C-->this is ambiant temperature,as tank was let sit for 10 minutes this time.

Tank B starting pressure= 1 ATM
Tank B starting temperature of course 22*C

System was let sit for 20 minutes after the transfer and equalisation.

End pressure tanks A&B= 18.3psi
End temperature tanks A&B = 22*C-->ambiant temperature.

Oh,and just for the record Mark,this is the system now opperating with the ram. The work being done is the ram raising a 7kg steel plate by 400mm-->just so as you can have a laugh at the mentally blocked person on the other end of this keyboard.

Have a nice day

Brad

[tinman]

Really?  You think that was an insult? Really?   

When you ask for calculations against set-ups that are not as you represent them, the results are GIGO.

The device is set up to do  exactly was i have claimed it would do from the very start,and that is- draw in extra energy from the open part of the system(the enviroment) while increasing in energy.

You are free at any time to try and get your arrangements to do useful work in excess of the work that you put into them.

I gave you the numbers above,and also the work that was done. The only reason that you do not wish to crunch those numbers is because the results will go against what you believe in.

Let me know when you think you have done so, describe the set-up accurately and I will be happy to check your work.

The setup is as it was first described to be,with the addition of tank B.Tank A supplying a ram with compressed air. The ram doing usful work(lifting a 7kg weight 400mm),and the(now heated)gas returned to tank B. The rest of the opperation will be remaining with me pending your number crunching-If you will please . Once i have the system to 150% by the numbers i supply you,i will then go about finding a way to present the system here on this thread so as it cannot be refuted. This will be done in a way that is to satisfy !your! guidlines Mark-->which i have tried to follow to the leter to this date.

[LibreEnergia]

The device is set up to do  exactly was i have claimed it would do from the very start,and that is- draw in extra energy from the open part of the system(the enviroment) while increasing in energy.

Of course you can draw in extra energy from the environment by using some or all of the stored potential the cylinder at 40 psi. Then what?

To be useful you have to be able to recompress that cylinder without using any FURTHER external work (remember , initially you did some work to raise the pressure in the tank, but conveniently ignore this in your specification of the 'system').

The best you will be able to achieve is that you can extract energy from the system equal to the amount of work performed to pressurise it initially, such as would occur during a reversible adiabatic process. The amount you can extract as useful work compared with the amount lost as heat will depend on the thermodynamic cycle chosen, and being limited by the Carnot efficiency.

You need to specify a CYCLE and plot temperature vs pressures around the FULL cycle.  The work done per cycle is the area contained within that plot.  To measure just say the expansion phase as you are here is meaningless in terms of determining the overall efficiency.

[MarkE]

Mark,

I took your response as a "slam" against Brad as well.

Tinman suffers a mental block in that he claims he can peroform work from the internal energy of a gas volume without losing the commensurate energy from that gas volume.  Tinman insists on his claim in contravention to two hundred years of thermodynamics and numerous patient explanations.  Anyone can suffer a mental block.

I think you did not understand when he asked you if you could calculate how much extra air would need to be added to make his 110% system readings work.  Those were his readings but he did not know the increase in quantity.

I tire of tinman's habit of leaving out detail for whatever reason when he asks for opinions or calculations.  It is a waste of everyone's time.  I admire that he does experiments.  For experiments to be meaningful they must be fully and openly described along with the data obtained and the control experiments run.

We all know that if more air is added into the system it changes everything, and to add that extra air takes energy, how much air was added?

Yes, tinman described one apparatus and an experiment and then offered data from a quite different apparatus.  Then tinman objected when evaluation of the data he offered stated that the data was unreasonable for the apparatus that he had described.  Well, duh, the data did not come from the apparatus he described and so there is no surprise that it was spotted as unreasonable based on what he described.

So,, he is setting the benchmark test runs,, you did the math for that, now he has made a change to the plumbing but not the vessels so volume stays the same and the first charged vessel still has the same quantity and pressure to start, the added quantity goes into the vessel that is being charged up by the charged vessel while it is being charged up.

If anyone wants ot conduct experiments and have those experiments reviewed then they need to describe their experiments accurately.  You make an assumption and perhaps tinman did as well that the difference in apparatus did not matter.  Well, obviously it did matter.

This added quantity of air is supplied by the outside environment and not the operator, hence no cost to the operator.

That's one point of view and there are a number of circumstances under which it would be true in practice.  However, it is also true that the ability of the system to perform useful work decreased as a result of the operation, outside air admission notwithstanding.

Of course this extra quantity of air, under pressure, will need to be vented back to the outside environment to return the system back to the start conditions.

We have a starting condition of air at 40psi gauge in a 10l tank.  Later we have 16.2psi gauge in 30l.  PV product looks bigger doesn't it?  So, can we now do the same thing again and end up with 50l at 11 or 12psi?  Then 70 at say 9 or 10 psi gauge?  Now for the really big question:  Can we then take our higher volume, lower pressure gas and use it to reconstitute the 40psi gauge in the same or another 10l tank with anything left over?  If we can then we have found a way to harvest heat energy from a single temperature reservoir of the outside air, have broken the second law of thermodynamics on a macro scale and can theoretically devise engines that will never need fuel and will combat global warming.  Wouldn't that all be great stuff?  There's just that one little problem:  Entropy.

[MarkE]

The device is set up to do  exactly was i have claimed it would do from the very start,and that is- draw in extra energy from the open part of the system(the enviroment) while increasing in energy.

I gave you the numbers above,and also the work that was done. The only reason that you do not wish to crunch those numbers is because the results will go against what you believe in.


The setup is as it was first described to be,with the addition of tank B.Tank A supplying a ram with compressed air. The ram doing usful work(lifting a 7kg weight 400mm),and the(now heated)gas returned to tank B. The rest of the opperation will be remaining with me pending your number crunching-If you will please . Once i have the system to 150% by the numbers i supply you,i will then go about finding a way to present the system here on this thread so as it cannot be refuted. This will be done in a way that is to satisfy !your! guidlines Mark-->which i have tried to follow to the leter to this date.

You described one thing then supplied data from something else.  When I noted that the data you supplied did not fit the thing that you described you objected that I am somehow stuck in a belief.  The data will always tell the story.  The data confirmed that the data you offered was inconsistent with the apparatus that you described.

The apparatus has yet to perform any work.  When you get to the point that you get your apparatus to do work and measure the energy that it takes to get your apparatus through a complete cycle, then I will be happy to evaluate your data.  What I am not interested in is where you describe one thing and supply data from something else.