Technically, Tesla's "free energy" ambient heat engine didn't, or wouldn't, if it were built and if it worked, PRODUCE any energy, it would only convert energy, specifically heat or thermal energy, which is available, or at least exists, everywhere.
For a heat engine to run, it appears that a material needs to expand and contract by a change in temperature.
Tesla reasoned that if you started out at a cold temperature and air was cold and contracted to start out with, it could be expanded with environmental heat. As the air expanded it could be made to do work and as the gas does work it would subsequently loose energy (converting heat to mechanical "work") and again, be left in a low energy (cold) condition and the process could then be repeated.
The problem being, the 2nd Law of thermodynamics apparently dictates that a certain LARGE quantity of the heat used to drive a heat engine cannot ever be converted at all but must infact be "rejected", passing all the way through the heat engine.
This inevitable and unavoidable "waste heat" would quickly spoil Tesla's plan. The cold air would very quickly heat up from the build up of "waste heat".
As Tesla put it, comparing heat to water:
"Suppose that an extremely low temperature could be maintained by some process in a given space; the surrounding medium would then be compelled to give off heat, which could be converted into mechanical or other form of energy, and utilized. By realizing such a plan, we should be enabled to get at any point of the globe a continuous supply of energy, day and night....
...But can we produce cold in a given portion of the space and cause the heat to flow in continually? To create such a "sink," or "cold hole," as we might say, in the medium, would be equivalent to producing in the lake a space either empty or filled with something much lighter than water. This we could do by placing in the lake a tank, and pumping all the water out of the latter. We know, then, that the water, if allowed to flow back into the tank, would, theoretically, be able to perform exactly the same amount of work which was used in pumping it out, but not a bit more. Consequently nothing could be gained in this double operation of first raising the water and then letting it fall down. This would mean that it is impossible to create such a sink in the medium.
But let us reflect a moment. Heat, though following certain general laws of mechanics, like a fluid, is not such; it is energy which may be converted into other forms of energy as it passes from a high to a low level. To make our mechanical analogy complete and true, we must, therefore, assume that the water, in its passage into the tank, is converted into something else, which may be taken out... ...other forms of energy into which the heat is transformed in passing from hot to cold. If the process of heat transformation were absolutely perfect, no heat at all would arrive at the low level, since all of it would be converted into other forms of energy. Corresponding to this ideal case, all the water flowing into the tank... would continually flow in, and yet the tank would remain entirely empty,...
We would thus produce, by expending initially a certain amount of work to create a sink for the heat or, respectively, the water to flow in, a condition enabling us to get any amount of energy without further effort. This would be an ideal way of obtaining motive power.
We do not know of any such absolutely perfect process of heat-conversion, and consequently some heat will generally reach the low level, which means to say, in our mechanical analogue, that some water will arrive at the bottom of the tank, and a gradual and slow filling of the latter will take place, necessitating continuous pumping out. But evidently there will be less to pump out than flows in, or, in other words, less energy will be needed to maintain the initial condition than is developed by the fall, and this is to say that some energy will be gained from the medium. What is not converted in flowing down can just be raised up with its own energy, and what is converted is clear gain."
So, it seems the feasibility of Tesla's idea hinges on the nature of heat. Is heat a "fluid" as in the old Caloric theory or is heat just a form of energy that can be converted?
And if the later, can enough of the heat energy be converted to make the plan practical, or will there be so much "waste heat" to "pump out" that we would use more energy for refrigeration than could be gained from the ambient surroundings?
Part of Tesla's proposal is a no-brainer.
Can a heat engine even run on cold in the first place?
Obviously the answer to that question is yes.
Yes, the engine ran for some time, but of course, the ice eventually melts and the engine stops.
But, what is actually melting the ice? Heat going down through the engine into the ice or just the surrounding heat in the air, or both?
Will the ice melt faster with the engine running on top or slower?
Well, what about electricity?
Would a battery last longer running a motor than when short circuited?
I think pretty obviously the motor slows down the "flow" of electricity, compared with just letting the current flow directly from terminal to terminal.
The Stirling heat engine is running on ice, but the ice is effectively "short circuited" to the ambient environment all the while. The ice is going to melt regardless.
So, let's say we put the ice in a dewar vacuum insulated container and run the engine on top of that?
Experimentally, I have run an engine for 33 hours on a cup of ice that was kept insulated.
Kept insulated, the ice will also still melt more slowly with a running engine compared with the same setup using an identical but inoperative engine.
Apparently something that a Stirling heat engines is doing is blocking or preventing heat, or at least some of the heat, from passing through to the ice.
Would it be possible to apply Tesla's ambient heat engine concept to electricity? Create an artificial GROUND so the current doesn't discharge into the surroundings?
Is that why Newman's engine could not work if it was grounded?
From numerous experiments I've carried out over the years, it seems the amount of heat actually passing through a Stirling type heat engine is extremely small to non-existent. Actually, with a little tweaking, it looks like these engines can double as heat pumps, using a high heat to produce the mechanical "work" to then "pump" additional heat from the cold side over to the hot side, then converting heat from BOTH the hot and the relatively cold side into mechanical "work" output.
So, I'm thinking that Tesla's goal may not only be within reach, but possibly more easily and more effectively than he ever imagined.
At any rate, as far as I can tell, the mathematical "LIMIT" of the 2nd Law or ""Carnot efficiency limit" as used today is either entirely wrong altogether or inapplicable to Stirling type heat engines.
According to "Carnot Limit" calculations nearly all the heat should be going straight through the engines I've been working with. If that were the case the cold side of the engine could not possibly remain cool at ambient temperature and should certainly not ever drop below ambient, but that is what my tests have shown.
For a heat engine to run, it appears that a material needs to expand and contract by a change in temperature.
Tesla reasoned that if you started out at a cold temperature and air was cold and contracted to start out with, it could be expanded with environmental heat. As the air expanded it could be made to do work and as the gas does work it would subsequently loose energy (converting heat to mechanical "work") and again, be left in a low energy (cold) condition and the process could then be repeated.
The problem being, the 2nd Law of thermodynamics apparently dictates that a certain LARGE quantity of the heat used to drive a heat engine cannot ever be converted at all but must infact be "rejected", passing all the way through the heat engine.
This inevitable and unavoidable "waste heat" would quickly spoil Tesla's plan. The cold air would very quickly heat up from the build up of "waste heat".
As Tesla put it, comparing heat to water:
"Suppose that an extremely low temperature could be maintained by some process in a given space; the surrounding medium would then be compelled to give off heat, which could be converted into mechanical or other form of energy, and utilized. By realizing such a plan, we should be enabled to get at any point of the globe a continuous supply of energy, day and night....
...But can we produce cold in a given portion of the space and cause the heat to flow in continually? To create such a "sink," or "cold hole," as we might say, in the medium, would be equivalent to producing in the lake a space either empty or filled with something much lighter than water. This we could do by placing in the lake a tank, and pumping all the water out of the latter. We know, then, that the water, if allowed to flow back into the tank, would, theoretically, be able to perform exactly the same amount of work which was used in pumping it out, but not a bit more. Consequently nothing could be gained in this double operation of first raising the water and then letting it fall down. This would mean that it is impossible to create such a sink in the medium.
But let us reflect a moment. Heat, though following certain general laws of mechanics, like a fluid, is not such; it is energy which may be converted into other forms of energy as it passes from a high to a low level. To make our mechanical analogy complete and true, we must, therefore, assume that the water, in its passage into the tank, is converted into something else, which may be taken out... ...other forms of energy into which the heat is transformed in passing from hot to cold. If the process of heat transformation were absolutely perfect, no heat at all would arrive at the low level, since all of it would be converted into other forms of energy. Corresponding to this ideal case, all the water flowing into the tank... would continually flow in, and yet the tank would remain entirely empty,...
We would thus produce, by expending initially a certain amount of work to create a sink for the heat or, respectively, the water to flow in, a condition enabling us to get any amount of energy without further effort. This would be an ideal way of obtaining motive power.
We do not know of any such absolutely perfect process of heat-conversion, and consequently some heat will generally reach the low level, which means to say, in our mechanical analogue, that some water will arrive at the bottom of the tank, and a gradual and slow filling of the latter will take place, necessitating continuous pumping out. But evidently there will be less to pump out than flows in, or, in other words, less energy will be needed to maintain the initial condition than is developed by the fall, and this is to say that some energy will be gained from the medium. What is not converted in flowing down can just be raised up with its own energy, and what is converted is clear gain."
So, it seems the feasibility of Tesla's idea hinges on the nature of heat. Is heat a "fluid" as in the old Caloric theory or is heat just a form of energy that can be converted?
And if the later, can enough of the heat energy be converted to make the plan practical, or will there be so much "waste heat" to "pump out" that we would use more energy for refrigeration than could be gained from the ambient surroundings?
Part of Tesla's proposal is a no-brainer.
Can a heat engine even run on cold in the first place?
Obviously the answer to that question is yes.
Yes, the engine ran for some time, but of course, the ice eventually melts and the engine stops.
But, what is actually melting the ice? Heat going down through the engine into the ice or just the surrounding heat in the air, or both?
Will the ice melt faster with the engine running on top or slower?
Well, what about electricity?
Would a battery last longer running a motor than when short circuited?
I think pretty obviously the motor slows down the "flow" of electricity, compared with just letting the current flow directly from terminal to terminal.
The Stirling heat engine is running on ice, but the ice is effectively "short circuited" to the ambient environment all the while. The ice is going to melt regardless.
So, let's say we put the ice in a dewar vacuum insulated container and run the engine on top of that?
Experimentally, I have run an engine for 33 hours on a cup of ice that was kept insulated.
Kept insulated, the ice will also still melt more slowly with a running engine compared with the same setup using an identical but inoperative engine.
Apparently something that a Stirling heat engines is doing is blocking or preventing heat, or at least some of the heat, from passing through to the ice.
Would it be possible to apply Tesla's ambient heat engine concept to electricity? Create an artificial GROUND so the current doesn't discharge into the surroundings?
Is that why Newman's engine could not work if it was grounded?
From numerous experiments I've carried out over the years, it seems the amount of heat actually passing through a Stirling type heat engine is extremely small to non-existent. Actually, with a little tweaking, it looks like these engines can double as heat pumps, using a high heat to produce the mechanical "work" to then "pump" additional heat from the cold side over to the hot side, then converting heat from BOTH the hot and the relatively cold side into mechanical "work" output.
So, I'm thinking that Tesla's goal may not only be within reach, but possibly more easily and more effectively than he ever imagined.
At any rate, as far as I can tell, the mathematical "LIMIT" of the 2nd Law or ""Carnot efficiency limit" as used today is either entirely wrong altogether or inapplicable to Stirling type heat engines.
According to "Carnot Limit" calculations nearly all the heat should be going straight through the engines I've been working with. If that were the case the cold side of the engine could not possibly remain cool at ambient temperature and should certainly not ever drop below ambient, but that is what my tests have shown.