Carnot to be Revised

Over the years, there are MANY people pushing various ideas that appear to contradict the laws of nature as we know them. In the recent past, zero-point energy and cold fusion serve as good examples, but it's a long and in-glorious field. For the last several hundred years, all the the folks branded as crackpots have turned out to really BE crackpots.

That said, I have no doubt that somebody, sooner or later, will come up with an idea that will upset the current paradigm. You may be the one--but I wouldn't give very good odds.

Dear DFD:

...

It is an approximation. or limit of sorts. So defining "wrong" might be a useful thing, while you are boasting. We'll know what to expect, and you'll have a face-saving exit available.

David A. Smith

...

I'm dying for details of your perpetual motion....

Brian W

Spelling errors are just spelling errors, but this demi-god was named Sadi Nicolas Léonard Carnot

Brian W

| In the meantime, any immediate thoughts or comments please?

Why not spend more time actually trying to make it work, rather than here trying to make us believe something you haven't yet (and we believe cannot be) accomplished. If you can in fact prove us wrong, go right ahead. But boasting about it beforehand is pointless.

Internet search on his "handle"... (these were very slow loads) URL:

13, patent relating to desalinization URL: 11, patent relating to desalinization URL: , patent... "Drewes, Dietmar F Power generation and low grade heat recovery Date Lodged: 30 May 2001 GB0113034.3" URL: 32, patent... "Drewes, Dietmar Heat based power generation Date Lodged: 31 May 2002 GB0212682.9"

more in Jan, May, Jun of 2003; the later two being related to heat engines.

He posted to sci.physics.relativity also, so I suspect he is looking for:

1) a fight to add "validity" to his claims, 2) a sucker to sell his ideas to.

I don't find anything related to "carnot and dietmar" that is clearly related to his current chest-thumping.

David A. Smith

Michael, thank you for a well reasoned response. You will find it very easy and interesting, I think and hope that you will find this to be a treat.

David A. Smith, the entire Carnot emphasis on temperature difference is wrong, as I will show, thank you.

Brian Whatcott, details of my? Could you please advise where I ever mentioned a perpetual motion machine? Though, I do realize that it makes some people feel good to invent something about other people and then making a put down out of their own invention and ascribing it to others. Sad.

Brian Whattcott, again, in all my textbooks (you will have references in the posting to come) he is spelled as ?Sidi', sorry about that.

Phil-, trying to make what work? Making you believe what? I am not boasting; I am talking about the Carnot efficiency formula, that's what I also wrote about. Though, I do not know what you read.

Gentlemen, what's the problem? I will present two Rankine cycles with data from an utterly reliable source, two Carnot efficiency calculations for these two cycles and two real world efficiency calculations for these two cycles. Where ?real world' refers to (Work/Qin). And, as we all know, the real world efficiency CANNOT EVER surpass Carnot. So, proving me wrong should be very simple indeed, should it not? Also, I gather from your responses that you are US citizens, and since the data is in SI-system I will add in brackets the corresponding USC-system data. Should make it even easier for you.

Also, there's a good reason why I have to wait with the posting, sorry about that. It's not meant as being overly proud on my behalf. However, I am sure you will have some fun proving a simpleton like me to be wrong, you'll have some fun. And how much easier can I make it than using two cycles that are identical, apart from the parameters, and checking them with identical formulae?

But, why all those personal, vicious attacks? What harm have I done to you? Oh well, characters are different, aren't they?

Regards to all Dietmar

We eagerly await your conclusive proof. There are some disbelievers amoungst us who might question your ability to successfully challenge some long standing pricincples of thermodynamics. Idle boasts don't get anywhere with engineers. Lets see your data.

Michael

Carnot derived his efficiency by comparing the performance of an ideal reversible engine to that of an arbitrary cycle. If you have an engine with higher efficiency than the reversible Carnot cycle, hook the two together and you get a perpetual motion machine.

So a claim of higher efficiency than the reversible Carnot efficiency is nothing more than a claim for a perpetual motion machine.

OT. I was sitting in the Cafe Carnot in Place Carnot in Lyon a couple of weeks ago. However this turned out not to be the engineering Carnot, but another one, a French 19th century politician. I was most disappointed.

When I was a kid, I used to entertain the possibility of building a machine that could somehow remove heat energy from the air and turn it into electricity or some other useful form of energy. And, in the mean time, cold air would be produced as a byproduct of it's operation. Even though I've analyzed all the heat driven cycles I can think of, I still haven't been able conjure up one that could actually do this. Even though I haven't been able to think of any fluidic way to accomplish this, it still might be possible to capture individual molecules of gas and turn their kinetic energy into electricity. Of course, such a system would probably require the use of nanotechnology to capture and convert energy on such a small scale. If this is what you've invented, I'll buy it. :-)

Robert

It's interesting to recall that there is a pneumatic device that uses compressed air at ambient and splits it to a hot stream, and a cold stream. Can be 60C and -10C respectively.

Brian W

Ah, yes, the vortex cooler. They call them "heat killers" in factories.

Michael

Dear Herman Family:

...

And a bigger waste of compressed air there never was. Another is the "air amplifier", which uses the coanda effect to produce a large volume moving air stream from a "small" stream of compressed air...

And yet there are jobs that these things seem to excell at...

David A. Smith

| Phil-, trying to make what work? Making you believe what? I am not | boasting; I am talking about the Carnot efficiency formula, that's | what I also wrote about. Though, I do not know what you read.

I read your post. You are obviously trying to make some kind of perpetual motion machine. Let me know when you succeed.

| Gentlemen, what's the problem? I will present two Rankine cycles with | data from an utterly reliable source, two Carnot efficiency | calculations for these two cycles and two real world efficiency | calculations for these two cycles. Where ?real world' refers to | (Work/Qin). And, as we all know, the real world efficiency CANNOT EVER | surpass Carnot. So, proving me wrong should be very simple indeed, | should it not? Also, I gather from your responses that you are US | citizens, and since the data is in SI-system I will add in brackets | the corresponding USC-system data. Should make it even easier for you.

Then get on with it. Do it. Don't spend time boasting. Show me!

| Also, there's a good reason why I have to wait with the posting, sorry | about that. It's not meant as being overly proud on my behalf. | However, I am sure you will have some fun proving a simpleton like me | to be wrong, you'll have some fun. And how much easier can I make it | than using two cycles that are identical, apart from the parameters, | and checking them with identical formulae?

If you have to wait, fine. Post when you have it accomplished. If you need help from someone here, ask. But posting about what you claim that you will do isn't worthwhile.

| But, why all those personal, vicious attacks? What harm have I done to | you? Oh well, characters are different, aren't they?

No harm done, except maybe to your reputation.

They were probably related - Sadi's father and uncle were both in politics during in the Revolution (also both engineers). His father Lazare was one of the 12 members of the Committee of Public Safety who ran the country during the Terror.

Bruce.

Coriander Lexus wrote:

If you have really discovered a way to produce 100% (and higher) efficient devices, can it be done economically and applied in practical ways? Remember how the 2 scientists in Utah claimed to have discovered cold fusion and where are they now?

Bob

Yes, they do seem to go through a lot of compressed air. I used one in an instrument cabinet in a very hot area. It worked great, and was on only intermittently. A thermoelectric cooler didn't cut it. I think that they were a waste when used for long term large area cooling, which I've also seen.

Michael

Hmmmm, we are still waiting. I guess Carnot's theory will remain for a little longer, after all.

Peter