Stirlingengineforum.com

You still pay the penalty of lugging around the extra weight of fuel. Cars are more efficient on the bottom 1/4 of a fuel tank, because the extra weight is missing. In a car fuel weight is not a big percentage of car weight. You won't see a big savings. It may not be worth the risk of running out, ...

... 400 J of energy converted to work on the forward stroke. 300 J getting back to the start. That sets the efficiency. I'll have look at how to post the letter Etta. Qcz is kind of a penalty cost of back work or compression. ... Another way of looking at it: 400 joules converted to work on the for...

Analogies or thought experiments are a dime a dozen. Which analogy comes closest to describing reality is the question. Ultimately resolved by observation/experimental outcome. I like to think of the car analogy as having a full tank of fuel and only burning the top 1/4 part of the tank, then refill...

To be fair, I'll say, I "checked" the validity of your derivation briefly, or rather, after some hours doing the various substitutions and whatnot on paper looking for purely "mathematical" errors, while assuming the Carnot efficiency to be correct and then plugging that in. I ha...

Well, fool, after going through your derivation I find no particular MATHEMATICAL flaws. If you have a temperature difference at the hot plate of 400°K for example, and a cold plate at 300°K you have a ratio on the absolute temperature scale. In this case 25% 300°K is 75% of 400°K. It's undeniable t...

... Qc then becomes DQc the heat rejected per cycle. Minimize this to zero if possible. Determined by Derivation and Calculation once 'n' is known. ... To be clear, your 'n' I suppose represents η, Greek letter eta, The symbol for Carnot efficiency ? Do we not already know the Carnot efficiency ? T...

All that you just posted is hog wash. No, the way you phrase your statements is at best ambiguous and needs clarification. Please try to make sense. Definitions of mathematical variables require precise definitions not slippery, meaningless nonsensical definitions that could mean anything and later...

This again? fool? First off, it looks like the same old merry-go-round Let Qhz be the internal energy from heat added to the cycle all the way from zero K Kelvin to Th. Can you unpack that sentence please? How is "internal energy" from "heat added"? You said the heat added (DQc, ...

Yes, "energy" in a sense, goes "through" the engine 100% It goes in as "heat". "Heat" is, of course, a term applied to a human perception. The "heat" going in is a form of energy. The heat is taken in by the gas causing it to expand and put pressure ...

Maybe it would be helpful to draw a distinction between passing "heat" though an engine and passing "energy" through an engine. And yes I know there's no such thing as heat. What I mean is a distinction between passing total temperature through v. passing total energy through? W...

Anything? I'd love to see it. So far, in ten years I've seen nothing. Please! Please! Please... Show me the "reverification". You've seen plenty. ... As usual, empty handed. Nothing but blah blah blah... If you had any concrete evidence of the validation or "revalidation" of the...

... If a waterwheel can put out work with all the mass going through, losing some of its energy by altitude drop, a heat engine can output work if all the caloric goes straight through losing some of its energy by temperature drop. By Kinematic Theory: all the energy, heat or otherwise can't go str...

..... Perhaps the fact that the old mathematics was reverified was missed by you? Thus, rendering all your comments about Conserved and flowing calorics, moot. ... I guess so... "Reverified" how? When? By whom? Where? Using what methodologies? What experiments? Throughout this thread you'...

... Tom,... You say a Carnot is mythical, and then say "Since in reality a Carnot engine passes ALL the heat through to the "cold reservoir' Q2 = Q1". At best very entertaining. ... LOL Geez, you got me. LOL In reality , Carnot's theoretical, mythical, non existent engine, according ...

Fool wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 8:48 am

This was still true according to Kelvin's commentary in the 1987 edition.

Actually the date was 1897. ...

Obviously a typo, since the accompanying link I posted was to the 1897 edition. Sorry about that.