Newman motor and Stirling engine theory

[Tom Booth]

What has captured my attention in regard to the Newman motor is some of his theories seem to overlap my own observations of how Stirling heat engines appear to operate, including apparent energy output in apparent violation of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics as generally interpreted (i.e. "Carnot Limit").

From my observations and experiments, it appears to me that a "hot air engine" does not operate in accordance with the kinetic theory of gases, where heating a gas only causes an increase in kinetic motion with no attractive forces between gas molecules.

On the contrary, gas molecules seem to exist (in our atmosphere generally) in a state of equilibrium where the various attractive and repulsive forces are in balance. Adding heat to a heat engine upsets this balance resulting in "expansion" a long with "work" output followed by "contraction".

A hot air engine then is an oscillator with expansion and contraction of a gas from a central point of equilibrium.

Heat goes in as "heat" (thermal energy) and comes out as "work" (mechanical energy) involving the compression and expansion of the gas within a cylinder.

Newman talks about how his motor compresses electricity releasing his "gyroscopic particles".

In another thread here I've pointed out the apparent parallels between the 90° phase shift in a driven oscillating circuit and the 90° advance on heat input in a Stirling engine.

Adding heat to a Stirling engine midway through the compression cycle seems counter productive and counter intuitive.

Anyway, this experiment, I think, provides a visual look at how a Stirling heat engines appears to be an oscillator.




To help illustrate the strength of the attractive "pull" of the gas molecules after expending energy on expansion "work" inverted the engine and attached a rather weighty metal clip to the tiny piston.

Even while continuing to apply high heat from a propane torch to the engine with no active or appreciable external cooling, the "pull" of the "contracting" gas is strong enough to lift this relatively heavy weight.



Also interesting are reports of Newman's motor COOLING rather than warming up as ordinary motors tend to do.

I've observed in my experiments with Stirling engines similar apparent cooling or refrigeration-like effects where the "laws of thermodynamics" suggest there must be heat "rejection" from the engine.

In this experiment the engine has been running on near boiling hot water for several hours.

The 2nd Law/Carnot Limit dictates that the top of the engine should be "rejecting" approximately 80% or more of the heat entering the engine to produce the mechanical motion of the engine.

Instead, even after several hours of operation, the top of the engine remains cool to the touch and the thermal image readings indicate that the top of the engine has cooled down a few degrees below the ambient surroundings rather than heating up.

[Tom Booth]

BTW, in the last video above, the white cotton looking material is a silica aerogel blanket to retain heat making inside the engine.

Removing the blanket it is clear to see from the thermal imaging that heat is indeed reaching the inside of the engine by all appearances at least.

There is a high heat signature (red coloration) in the area of the power cylinder. In my mind, however, that is a result of friction. Friction is a result of mechanical motion. In other words, heat is first converted to mechanical motion which creates friction which then produces heat.

Generally speaking the "Carnot Limit" calculations take no account of friction. Furthermore friction can be reduced by improved low friction lubricants or precision no-contact piston and cylinder.

Without the added heat from friction coming from the power cylinder, logically the top of the engine might reach even lower temperatures

[kloakez]

Maybe only slightly related, but another device that cools down instead of heating up is the Kromrey converter. And there are several devices allegedly creating over unity that work on the principle of harvesting/drawing air ions (or electrons) from the air which also cools down the device. I would be amazed if that is what is going on in here.

[Tom Booth]

Maybe only slightly related, but another device that cools down instead of heating up is the Kromrey converter. And there are several devices allegedly creating over unity that work on the principle of harvesting/drawing air ions (or electrons) from the air which also cools down the device. I would be amazed if that is what is going on in here.

____________

I'd have to take some time and look into the. kromrey converter.

My basic question was, starting over 10 years ago; if energy is conserved, and a heat engine converts heat into mechanical motion, the old "caloric" theory was that the heat goes right through the engine like water through a turbine and out the other side.

That was accepted and seems to still be the basis for the laws of thermodynamics as they relate to heat engines.

Tesla came along and said that No, heat is just one form of energy. The heat that goes into a heat engine is transformed or converted into mechanical motion so does not pass through at all, or at least does not have to.

Modern theory strikes a kind of compromise and says SOME heat can be converted by a heat engine but there is a definite mathematical limit based on the temperature.

So in trying to sort this out, I was looking at three different possibilities or theories or opinions or "Laws" regarding what happens to the heat that goes into a heat engine.

Looking over the history books on the subject it seemed like it was all talk. All theory. No actual experimental research to settle the question.

So I just thought up some simple experiments to determine which of the competing theories were true. That was all.

I was never trying to "prove" one theory over another.

My results, invariably landed on the side of Tesla's conclusions.

I could not detect the quantities of heat predicted to flow through a heat engine and out the other side. In some cases, as in the above video, there seemed to actually be LESS than no heat at all getting through the engine. Instead the side of the engine where heat was supposed to be coming through grew slightly colder.

I came up with some theories based on my observations what might be causing this cooling, and making some modifications to the engine found that I could increase the "refrigerating" effect.

Tesla's ultimate ambition was to build a heat engine that converted environmental heat into mechanical energy, so he was going toe to toe with the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.

Well, on my workbench at least, so far, it appears Tesla was correct.

Newman, I think, encountered a similar perplexing issue in his reading.

If electricity goes THROUGH a coil producing a magnetic field that can turn a motor, but then, when the current is stopped and the field collapsed, producing an additional current, well, isn't that a violation of conservation of energy if the current went through the wire, was "converted" to mechanical output, but then MORE current was produced by the collapsing magnetic field?

Similarly, how can heat be converted to mechanical energy by a heat engine and ALSO pass through the engine and out the other side?

I don't think electricity is the same as heat but the issue Newman  worked to solve is similar in many ways.

[Tom Booth]

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.