It is curious how my simple question regarding the actual origin and presumed verification of the Carnot efficiency limit equation ALWAYS, for ten years or so now, goes unanswered:
https://www.sciforums.com/threads/origin...th.166462/
These are, I think, legitimate questions are they not?
Origin and verification of e=(Th-Tc)/Th
Tom Booth
Registered Member
Saturday at 4:06 AM
Can anyone tell me where this formula originated and how it was verified? (With citations, please).
Thanks in advance
Tom
https://www.sciforums.com/threads/origin...th.166462/
Such a foundational scientific principle should have some known contextual origin and history. Some record of empirical verification and testing of some kind, like virtually all other accepted principles in science.
The actual textual origin would presumably include the context for how this temperature ratio was originally interpreted. Otherwise we have simply a temperature difference.
In what way was this temperature difference originally considered to be in any way related to engine efficiency? What was the original theory behind it? Who formulated this equation? Are there examples of how it was intended to be used by whomever actually originated it, and why is it attributed to Carnot?
It uses the Kelvin temperature scale which did not exist in Carnot's lifetime.
How was it verified that such a temperature ratio placed a hard limit on engine efficiency in the way it is currently believed?
Why is such information not more readily available, if it exists at all?
I think these are valid questions, but whenever I make such an inquiry, all I seem to get is snide remarks and attacks on my character and personal motives.
Without answers to such basic questions, what is the actual value of such a formula as this, which by all appearances is nothing more or less than Carnot's Caloric theory based, heat as a waterfall theories, now known to have been erroneous and now considered obsolete.
If we are to keep this formula around, should it not at least be subject to some kind of modern standards of empirical validation?
I thought so.
So I did a few simple experiments to get some ideas about the quantity of "waste heat" being "rejected" through the cold side of my Stirling engines.
By the calculations of that formula the waste heat should be about 5 times more than the heat utilized to run the engine, or heat converted to mechanical motion.
Instead I found virtually none at all. Actually, at times the instrument readings indicated a temperature drop of a degree or two at the presumed "heat rejection" site, or cold (ambient) side of my engines.
This is all on video:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpx2I...0Ive2y-kHB
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpx2I...Apy0xbvFzr
Could it be these are actually the only experiments that have ever been conducted in an effort to verify the Carnot efficiency limit "LAW"?
https://www.sciforums.com/threads/origin...th.166462/
These are, I think, legitimate questions are they not?
Origin and verification of e=(Th-Tc)/Th
Tom Booth
Registered Member
Saturday at 4:06 AM
Can anyone tell me where this formula originated and how it was verified? (With citations, please).
Thanks in advance
Tom
https://www.sciforums.com/threads/origin...th.166462/
Such a foundational scientific principle should have some known contextual origin and history. Some record of empirical verification and testing of some kind, like virtually all other accepted principles in science.
The actual textual origin would presumably include the context for how this temperature ratio was originally interpreted. Otherwise we have simply a temperature difference.
In what way was this temperature difference originally considered to be in any way related to engine efficiency? What was the original theory behind it? Who formulated this equation? Are there examples of how it was intended to be used by whomever actually originated it, and why is it attributed to Carnot?
It uses the Kelvin temperature scale which did not exist in Carnot's lifetime.
How was it verified that such a temperature ratio placed a hard limit on engine efficiency in the way it is currently believed?
Why is such information not more readily available, if it exists at all?
I think these are valid questions, but whenever I make such an inquiry, all I seem to get is snide remarks and attacks on my character and personal motives.
Without answers to such basic questions, what is the actual value of such a formula as this, which by all appearances is nothing more or less than Carnot's Caloric theory based, heat as a waterfall theories, now known to have been erroneous and now considered obsolete.
If we are to keep this formula around, should it not at least be subject to some kind of modern standards of empirical validation?
I thought so.
So I did a few simple experiments to get some ideas about the quantity of "waste heat" being "rejected" through the cold side of my Stirling engines.
By the calculations of that formula the waste heat should be about 5 times more than the heat utilized to run the engine, or heat converted to mechanical motion.
Instead I found virtually none at all. Actually, at times the instrument readings indicated a temperature drop of a degree or two at the presumed "heat rejection" site, or cold (ambient) side of my engines.
This is all on video:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpx2I...0Ive2y-kHB
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpx2I...Apy0xbvFzr
Could it be these are actually the only experiments that have ever been conducted in an effort to verify the Carnot efficiency limit "LAW"?