Self-Running Ambient Heat Engine

[Tom Booth]

Looking at another video of a different air motor, my best guess at this time is that the bulky thing, apparently wrapped in blue plastic, in what is supposed to be the air feed line to the engine is just a simple air/gas line pressure regulator.

This would have no particular significance other than to keep an even flow of pressure to the engine.

The image below of the "blue thing" (pressure regulator?) is from this video on the same YouTube channel.

https://youtu.be/22p6z6Q_PaA


Screenshot_20211219-114032.jpg

[Tom Booth]

A pressure regulator in the line has me suspicious.

If a large air tank were pressurized to say 200psi and the engine could be made to run at 30psi or whatever, setting the regulator to 30psi could keep the engine running steadily at 30psi for a long time, disguising the fact that the tank pressure was steadily dropping.

A good reason, perhaps, to keep the pressure regulator in wraps.

[thaelin]

Hey Tom:
This just posted on another forum I am in about the Sterling. Good watch on your quest.
https://bangshift.com/bangshiftapex/...he-government/
Might still be able to contact the company that made it too.

thay

[Tom Booth]

Hey Tom:
This just posted on another forum I am in about the Sterling. Good watch on your quest.
https://bangshift.com/bangshiftapex/...he-government/

Might still be able to contact the company that made it too.

thay

Do you mean these guys: https://mticontrols.com/index.php

After some 15 years or so of studying Stirling engines, and trying to figure out how they work, I've come to the conclusion that just about everything I've ever learned is wrong. Except maybe some of what James Senft wrote in Mechanical Efficiency of Heat Engines.

The prevailing idea anyway, that they work by "transporting" heat between a hot side to a cold side seems wrong

It seems to be more like an oscillating electric circuit.

The "heat" put to the engine, which is really molecular kinetic energy "bounces" the piston one way, in the process, converting molecular kinetic energy to velocity (mechanical mass motion).

Then the molecular kinetic energy of ATMOSPHERIC "heat" "bounces" the piston back, AGAIN converting "heat" to velocity.

There is no "flow" of any heat through the engine from the hot side to the cold side as supposed.

Rather "heat" is taken from both the heat source applied to the engine and the heat supplied by the atmosphere. "Pressure" acting as an intermediary between molecular kinetic energy and the velocity of the piston, but "pressure" is not really something other than molecular kinetic energy.

So the hot gas in the engine and the nearly equally hot atmosphere bat the piston back and forth like a ping pong ball in between is not a flow of heat but a mass movement of the piston.

If the piston happens to be magnetic and passes a coil to generate electricity, then we have mechanical motion converted to electrical output.

Senft refers to this "ping pong ball" type ossillation as "constant mechanical effectiveness".

That is, the heat applied to the engine drives the piston one way. Atmospheric heat drives it back. (That is, "pressure", or molecular kinetic energy)

Senft's whole argument is that these two forces need to be balanced to produce this "constant mechanical effectiveness" which means simply that when the atmosphere is pushing the piston back, the applied heat should not be working against it, and vice versa.

"Cold" IMO, does not really enter into the picture at all. It is a misconception that the heat going into a Stirling engine has to be removed by cold for the engine to complete a cycle That is kind of like short circuiting an oscillating circuit.

I think, as a consequence of this unintentional "short circuit", historically, Stirling engines have been almost hopelessly inefficient, or apparently so.

Trying to make this clear;

Like ping pong, the kinetic energy put into the ball by one player does not go across the table to be "taken out" by the other. The other player puts MORE energy into the ball.

In a similar way, I think the heat applied to the heat engine is one "player" the other "player" is atmospheric heat/pressure. Both contribute to the operation of the engine.

This seems like "common sense" to me at this point, but it is not what is taught about Stirling engines in a typical thermodynamics course.

[Tom Booth]

Remove the flywheel and it becomes rather clear that what is going on is an ossillation, not some supposed "flow" through and subsequent removal of heat.

So, in other words; this common depiction of how a Stirling engine operates, or how, according to the "LAWS" of thermodynamics, it MUST operate (heat, then cool, or remove heat) is wrong:

tech2a.gif


http://cs.westminstercollege.edu/~cc...ng/disp_a.html

The application of cold water to cool the engine shown is actually unnecessary and the engine apparently will run better without such an intentional draining away of heat. Heat is the actual fuel for a heat engine. Is it not axiomatic that intentionally draining away the heat (fuel) for no useful purpose is detrimental to the operation of the engine?

Yet, it is universally assumed that this cooling is necessary because of the second law of thermodynamics. This is only an apparency.

It is not "cold" that is needed, but rather, the addition of heat in one direction with no heat added from the other.

Well, isn't "no heat" the same thing as cold?

Well no, actually, hot and cold are just relative heat. Cold is less heat. Hot is more heat.

So what is meant by "no heat added" if not cold, or less heat?

The addition of heat can be blocked by insulation. Insulation is not "cold". Insulation is nothing really.

The insulation around a wire is not negative electricity or "less" electricity.

Anyway, this is verifiable, apparently by experiment

Instead of cooling the engine with cold water, just cover the "cold" side with insulation to prevent extraneous heat infiltration, which is kind of like bare wires short circuiting.

In several experiments, such as the one in this video above. Insulating the "cold side" or so-called "sink" of the engine, rather than blocking the "heat flow" causing it to overheat and grind to a halt, resulted in the engine running faster and stronger.

Funny though. Discussion of such experimental results has been banned on a number of Science and Physics forums I had posted these findings on.

That the holy second law might be wrong is just too unthinkable. Too upsetting, apparently

[Tom Booth]

This very thing was pointed out by Tesla in his article more than a century ago.

He said, contrary to Carnot and Kelvin and the Second Law, that heat is only a form of energy and can be converted, so to operate a heat engine, heat does not need to be removed to a "sink".

Heat that goes into the engine, causing the excitation of gasious molecular motion, does not need to be removed by "cold", rather it is removed by being converted to mechanical motion.