Put a small strong rubber band around your wrist, You only have to
stretch it once to put it on but it will squeeze you for days ! Where
does the continuing energy come from ??
Tom Miami, Florida, USA UFOlogist
PO Box 14-1205 Miami,Fla. 33114
===================================
Bill klinton Has No Intention Of Leaving Office At The End Of His
Term!
( Just My Opinion -- I Could Be Wrong ? )
===================================
Turn E-Mail into FAXES --> FREE Go To:
http://www.tpc.int/
Check Out My Cockatiel Angel's Web Page She Made It Herself(I Think She
Is AnAlien)
HTTP://home.talkcity.com/valentinedr/Angel----------Cake?
--WebTV-Mail-545335649-1856
Content-Disposition: Inline
Content-Type: Message/RFC822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Received: from mailsorter-102-2.iap.bryant.webtv.net (209.240.198.99) by
postoffice-121.bryant.webtv.net; Sat, 15 May 1999 16:25:06 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <Interact-return@Keelynet.com>
Received: from server.Lyghtforce.com (lyghtforce.com [216.60.190.1]) by
mailsorter-102-2.iap.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.8/ms.graham.14Aug97)
with SMTP id QAA14219 for <Ranger116@webtv.net> Sat, 15 May 1999
16:25:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brain.proaxis.com by server.Keelynet.com (NTList 3.03.0017)
id ka654820; Sat, 15 May 1999 18:23:34 -0500
Received: from default (ca11-21.inet-x.net [198.106.199.117]) by
brain.proaxis.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA19306 for <Interact@Keelynet.com>
Sat, 15 May 1999 16:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990515162341.0079ac10@proaxis.com>
X-Sender: boytrell@proaxis.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 16:23:41 -0700
To: Interact@Keelynet.com
From: boytrell@proaxis.com
Subject: Truth about Thermal energy
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Info: Interact on Keelynet Discussion List
Errors-To: jdecker@Keelynet.com
X-ListMember: Ranger116@webtv.net [Interact@Keelynet.com]
From: Boyd Cantrell <Boytrell@proaxis.com>
To: Interact@Keelynet.com
Subjest: Truth about Thermal Energy
Some of you may not like this but I think others will find it interesting.
Enjoy.
MISCONCEPTIONS OF THERMODYNAMICS
by Boyd Cantrell
INTRODUCTION
To boil an egg we waste a lot of thermal energy by continuously transfering
new heat through the water and egg when we could actually just get it all
up to a good boil and then put it into a thermos bottle to retard the loss
of heat and let it cook by using the same thermal energy continuously as
long as it last.
Now you know that would work. We insulate our homes and wear thick
clothing to retain and make use of the same thermal energy as long as
possible.
No other form of energy can be used that way. You can't put light photons
into a mirrored box in order to see by them while saving them. You can't
store an electrical potential in a capacitor or battery and make use of it
at the same time. You can't store mechanical energy and make use of it at
the same time. No other form of energy can be used this way. So this
puts thermal energy in a class all by itself and I say that it is the least
understood energy in our lives.
As a result of studying Thermodynamics for eighteen years and making some
expeariments of my own design I have found that the books are correct in
some areas and incorrect in others. This fiction mixed with fact leads to
many wrong conclusions. In this discourse I will expose many of the early
statements that were made by men like Carnot, Clausius, Kelvin and Planck.
The statements are the cornerstones in the foundations of Thermodynamics
and are still being taught today by the educational establishment. I
intend to show that the field of thermodynamics is still in it's dark ages.
JOULE'S FREE-EXPANSION
I'm sure that you have seen the illustrations of Joule's pressure vessels
under water in the so-called closed system expeariment. Many modern books
today still use it to try to prove somthing that is not true. They state
that after the valve is opened and after the gas has expanded and has come
to rest then the internal energy is the same as it was before because the
gas did not decrease in temperature. I only ask that you realize that
yesterday someone did work on that gas to put it all into the one vessel.
Now today they open the valve, loose all of that work and claim no loss.
I also see that the one pressurized vessel was the closed system, not both
vessels. Then he allowed the gas to leave that closed system and enter
another. But if that don't help you understand then just know that Joule's
himself finally realized that the density of the water was so great
compaired to that of the air ( and I say, not to mention that the specific
heat of the water was four times that of the air ) that if the gas had
decreased in temperature upon expansion (which it did ) it would have gone
undetected. So if your book is still using that illustration you would be
better off if you just mark that part wrong.
As I said, Joules himself realized that said expeariment was no good so
they devised the Porous-plug expeariment. Now that is not free
expansion as the gas is doing work on that second piston, which leads to
even more confusion. The books will have you believe that if a gas does
work during expansion then it gives up internal energy, but if it expands
freely then it don't. So you are expected to believe that the gas has the
intelligence to know wheather or not it's expansion is being taken
advantage of.
Now latter in the book they still can't get away from believing that if a
gas expands freely then the internal energy remains the same. It will get
said one way or another several times before it's over, like stating that
they make a gas do work as it expands because it gives more cooling effect
than a free expansion. It's obvious that they have forgotten that they
believe in the law of conservation of energy. Like I said, Yesterday
someone invested energy to compress a gas and today they let it expand
freely and claim no loss. So let's compress it again and let it go again
and do it again and again and again. Now! where has all of our work of
compression gone to ? They all believe that energy must be conserved but
they forget that.
IDEAL GAS
The subject of Thermodynamics would have been less confusing if they had
never dreamed up this Ideal gas. It does not exist. If it did it could
not have an inversion point like a real gas and it could not condense like
a real gas so there is no point in make-believe. Just know what real gases
do and you won't get confused. Let me put it this way, If you were to
charge up your Refrigeration unit with Ideal gas it would not give a good
Coefficient of Performance like the real gases do that go through a phase
change. Or if you tryed to power a steam engine with Ideal gas it couldn't
boil because it was never in a liquid state to start with and it couldn't
condense in the Condenser and create the high vacuums that increase the
efficiencys, Or even be recirculated by the liquid feed pump.
ALL GASES EXPAND AT THE SAME RATE
Yes it's still in the books. If it were true then you would only need one
pressure chart for all gases. You could just line up the boiling points,
count off so many degrees and find the pressure. But in reality we must
have charts for all gases as evidenced by the ASHRAE fundimentals handbook
or your refrigeration book.
KELVIN-PLANCK STATEMENT
It says that you can't take heat from a single reservoir and convert it
completly into work ( because there is no cooler reservoir for the heat to
flow down hill into. ) I say that when you ignite the Afterburner of a jet
aircraft the engine up front is now exhausting into a hotter reservoir than
before but it still works. No I do not say that it works as well as it did
before, but it still works. Let me say it this way, the plane is not
flying on Afterburner alone. I have one other thing to say about the
Kelvin-Planck statement. That is that even if it were true there is
somthing that most people don't really see in that statement, It is the
word COMPLETLY, I don't expect COMPLETE conversion of heat into work, Do
you? That word is always there. Some books say COMPLETLY. Some books say
HAVE NO OTHER EFFECT THAN. Some books say AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF WORK. But it
is there.
CARNOT'S THEOREM
It states that the efficiency of all reversible engines operating between
the same two temperatures is the same and no irreversible engine working
between the same two temperatures can have a greater efficiency than the
reversible engine. By the way, Later on Clausius and Kelvin backed him up
on that statement because they thought it was a necessary consequence of
the second law of thermodynamics.
That statement is wrong and has thrown people off track for many
generations.
We all know that a steam Turbine is far more efficient than Carnot's old
reciprocating engines that he would have us use in reverse as in a
refrigeration cycle. Now while a steam Turbine is the most efficient steam
engine it would not be that efficient if used as a compressor in a
refrigeration cycle. Oh it would compress but it makes a better Engine
than it does a Compressor!
Or to use a refrigerator in reverse as an Engine would not qualify as a
cyclic device because there is no Feed Pump.
I would think that the Authors of the books would at least realize that the
second law itself prohibits an exact reversible process because of
friction. In the forward mode some of the work is lost through friction,
so in reverse those frictional losses would have to become mechanical
energy, but Entropy won't allow that to happen. There is just no way to
get around the fact that the Carnot Theorem is wrong. It should be obvious
to any one that an Irreversible engine is the most efficient engine, Not
the Reversible one as still stated today by the educational establishment.
The books all say that the efficiency of a reversible engine is independent
of the working substance, so let's use the most efficient heat engine on
this planet which is the Diesel. Now let's turn it backwards and
see if it can compress those exhaust gases back to that high temperature
from which they came. Tumning that engine backwards and using it as a
compressor would be a pathetic situation. It would be a poor compressor
unless you changed the valve timing and if you did that then it would no
longer have that best efficiency when operated in the forward mode as an
engine. Or to say, ( It just ain't reversible! )
I think I can make you see it if I say it this way. In Carnot's
illustration he has the Refrigerator and Engine coupled togather in
between the hot and cold reservoir. Now let's see those reservoirs as the
terminals of a battery. And in between those terminals are an electric
motor and Generator with their shafts coupled togather. Now you can see
that the battery would soon be dead. To keep the battery charged the
combination of Motor and Generator would have to be 100% efficient.
That proves that no combination can be100% efficient. It does not mean
that one is more efficient than the other.
In automobiles we use a series connected motor for the starter because it
delivers high torque when needed, but to charge the battery we use a
shunted unit. Thats where the armature is connected in parallel with the
fields and believe me that generator would not compare with the series
motor for starting the engine. Now today we use alternators and rectifiers
because alternators charge good even at idle speed. So we can see once
again that things which are made for a specific purpose work better for
that purpose than somthing that is reversible. The shunt motor or
generator is reversible but it is not the best or the most efficient.
It's the same for Carnot's illustration, It simply proves that no
combination of reversible and or irreversible engines operating between
those two reservoirs can be 100% efficient. It does not prove as he
thought that a reversible engine is the most efficient. It's just the
opposite in the real world.
OK, Carnot stated his theorem, Clausius and Kelvin swallowed it. The
blind leading the blind. But that was a long time ago. They didn't have
the Steam turbins, Diesel engines, Afterburners and many other things that
we have today so they can be excused but we can't. People are still
swallowing it in colleges all over the world today.
CARNOT'S EQUATIONS
With the Heat engine formula, the closer T1 is to T2 the less work you get
for your heat right up to the point where they are the same temperature and
you get nothing. On the other hand with the refrigeration formula and the
heat pump formula, the closer T1 is to T2 the more heat you get for your
work but when they are the same and you would get the maximum in the real
world the formula says zero output. I guess one formula working out of
three is good enough for the educational establishment but not for me.
Somthing is wrong there.
HEAT ENGINES CONVERT HEAT INTO WORK. and
REFRIGERATORS CONVERT THE WORK OF COMPRESSION INTO HEAT.
Both of those statements are wrong. A Heat engine converts Pressure into
work. While it is true that the pressure was caused by the heat, it's not
a conversion of heat into work. All of the heat is still there after the
work is done, it is all spread out and at a lower temperature but still
there. A good example is the Hydroelectric plant, the pressure of the
water has been converted into work but the water itself is all still there
at the base of the Dam.
It's the same with the heat comming out of an Engine. It's all still there
but spread out. We could compress it to concentrate it just like we could
do work to lift the water back to the top of the Dam. It would be
fruitless of course, but I'm just trying to get the point across that the
heat is all still there. It's
the pressure that is gone. I say that once thermal energy exist it can not
be converted into other forms of energy or done away with in any manner.
Thermal energy is not in the same class with the others. Thats why heat
engine efficiencys seem so low compaired to electric motors, hydraulic
motors etc. Efficiency is the wrong word for it because a Heat engine
does not convert the heat, It simply takes advantage of it's passing.
PROOF
I have made several expeariments with thermal energy over the years. The
one I will explain now was the one that proves that Heat engines do not
convert the heat. they convert the pressure. I used a two horsepower
gasoline engine. I enclosed the flywheel and magneto, sealed it and the
entire engine so that it would run under water. I removed the carburetor
so that I could run it on natural gas. The rate of gas flow was controlled
by a regulator and meter. I bolted the engine down inside of a wooden box.
I let the output shaft protrude out of the box by using a rotary seal.
With belt and pulleys I connected the shaft to the shaft of a one
horsepower induction motor which I mounted on the outside of the box.
I then routed the engine exhaust through a heat exchanger on it's way
through the water to the atmosphere. I filled the box with water and
maintained a slow flow of water through the box during the entire
expeariment. I installed a wooden top on the box with a pyrometer to show
the temperature of the water at all times. I used the induction motor to
start the engine. I let the engine work very hard in trying to turn the
induction motor faster than 1860 rpm. This four pole induction motor when
under load will slip from line frequency of 1800 rpm to1740 rpm. By the
same physics you can make it slip upward to 1860 rpm by turning it faster
than line frequency, but you can't turn it faster than 1860. At this point
the electric motor was working as an Alternator and pushing energy back
into the main grid. As a motor it was labeled 12 ampers at 120 volts so I
adjusted the engine speed to make the Ammeter show 12 ampers so as to not
burn up the motor. ( By the way, I was an electric motor rewinder,
trouble shooter, repairman etc. for 25 years so I learned early on that you
could use an induction motor as an Alternator. )
As I said I let the engine work very hard in trying to drive the motor
faster than 1860 rpm untill the increasing water temperature stabilized at
118 degrees fahrenheit. Then I unpluged the motor from the power line
allowing the engine to run freely with out doing the work anymore. It was
still burning the same volume of fuel but now all of the energy could go
into heating of the water. I let the engine run freely this way for over
an hour in many tests but the water temperature did not increase. This
tells me that heat engines do not convert heat into work. By the way, if
anyone wants to recreate that expeariment, I advise you to go ahead and
spend the money for a Generator so you can power some light bulbs because
if you just show some one that you are creating a load on the engine by
using an induction motor like I did they may not understand. So don't
give them that chance. Even a used automobile Alternator and some
headlights will do the job.
Now the flip side of that is a Refrigerator or Heat pump. They tell you
that when you do work to extract heat from the cool reservoir that you get
to add the work that you did to the heat that you extracted. I
say that you can't have your cake and eat it too. I challenge them to take
their Heat pump to Alaska when it's twenty fahrenheit degrees below zero
and make it deliver an amount of heat that is equal to their work of
compression.
When we do work on a gas to compress it we exchange our work for pressure.
If that gas had a lot of thermal energy in it then we can squeeze out a lot
but if it had very little thermal energy then we can squeeze out only a
little. Please don't let them make you believe that you get to add your
work of compression as heat. There is no other field of physics where they
say that you get to add your work on top of what you exchanged your work
for. And I say not this field either. You can convert all of the work you
want into heat by friction but not by compressing a gas or a spring.
I have had rebutals from professors telling me that college students all
over the world perform expieriments every day and get the expected results.
I ask them which expeariments?, the Porous plug experiment does not prove
that a heat engine converts heat into work. Joules tanks under water
don't prove it. I tell them to put a heat engine under water like I did if
they want the truth. They do not answer me after that.
APPENDIX
The educational establishment just continues to restate the same old
statements that were in the books that they learned from. Forty eight
years ago my high school science teacher said that every time we discover
or invent somthing new it is our duty to look back and see if all that we
thought we knew still fits.
Thermodynamics is the one subject where all concerned have failed to do
just that.
-------------------------------------------------------------
To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com>
with the body text: leave Interact
list archives and on line subscription forms are at
http://keelynet.com/interact/
-------------------------------------------------------------
--WebTV-Mail-545335649-1856--