Stirlingengineforum.com

Work is a function of pressure x volume.

Pressure is a function of heat applied to a gas.

But that does not mean that heat converts to work. Work is just a consequence of heat. Heat creates pressure and pressure converts to work as the heat does what heat does, attempt to reach equilibrium.

I understand your position Tom. I am looking for an academic to show me some math outlining the direct conversion of heat to work.

If it can't be mathematical shown that heat is converted, then how can efficiency be calculated based on the percentage of heat not converted.

Rocket #1 is contained in a room, ignited and set to spin around a pole on a string, flying unloaded until depleted. Rocket #2 is attached to its maximum payload, ignited and reaches 5ft off the ground before being depleted. Rocket #3 is anchored to the ground, ignited and sits stationary until depl...

The compressed air thing is interesting in its own right, but my main point is that there seems to be no evidence that heat energy is actually converted to GPE, just that heat energy can be used to gain GPE.

I recently found an old dirt devil vacuum powered brush head attachment. It has a squirrel cage style fan blade and a belt drive to a brush head. It has a surprising amount of torque. Just for fun I hooked it to the vacuum and ran it up for a few minutes loaded and unloaded while checking temperatur...

Conversion to work is not "direct thermal transfer", and it is also not "reversible", and for the most part, cannot be "recycled". I am not suggesting perpetual motion. I am suggesting an improbable theoretical cycle where assuming no losses, by temperature degradation...

The way I would phrase this, assuming the heat is not in fact destroyed, by any other means than direct thermal transfer, is that the same heat energy, if it could be recycled at 100% efficiency, would produce its equal amount of work over and over again.

Well Tom you said it yourself. If the answer to my question violates the laws of thermodynamics, then it is certainly outside of tradition.

I would prefer all parties engage in the discussion.

Stroller and Fool represent the more traditional, proven, mainstream science. Tom is certainly on the fringe, along with me perhaps, just looking for answers.

Regarding the latest round of discussions, any extra weight presented to the piston when the starting condition is only 14.7psi will no longer allow a doubling of volume. The more weight, the more the expansion becomes closer to Cv. This, at the sweet spot, should minimize the amount of energy neede...

Stroller wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 5:24 am It's the action of the expanding gas "consuming" energy that I am interested in. Is internal energy really reduced when the gas expands, other than by conduction losses to the surrounding colder surfaces of the engine. And if so, how exactly? The ...

Well, "adiabatic" IS without any kind of thermal transfer in or out of the gas. To me that is a less complex scenario than isothermal which for every joule of work done by the gas an equivalent amount of heat is added to replace it. Very true, but my point being that an adiabatic expansio...

Tom that was a good response and about sums up what I would ask. By "free expansion", I believe Stroller and I had settled on the baseline of the gas expanding against one atmosphere. So it's still doing "work". I think, for now, thinking in terms of an isothermal expansion is le...

In any example, we would use the minimum amount of gas needed to do the work at hand. By degrades, I mean into a lower temperature state. It's the action of the expanding gas "consuming" energy that I am interested in. Is internal energy really reduced when the gas expands, other than by c...

Heat isn't a substance, it's manifested as a flow of energy from a hotter body to a colder body. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, but it can get translated from one thing to another. In our example, the extra Joule started out as additional energy passed from the external energy source into...