Carnot to be Revised

DFD · 2004-02-21T12:46:46+00:00

I am sure that most of you know about Sidi Carnot and his formula, forthose who don't it's (1- Tl/Th) = ((Th-Tl) / Th). Carnot's formula isof course fundamental to all engineering (and physics). Carnot is oneof the demi-gods of science. Try to open an advanced school textbookon physics and you will see what I mean. For universities it is first,second and third semester. General or classical engineering textbookssuch as ?Marks' Standard Handbook' (McGraw-Hill) or ?Kempe's EngineersYear-Book' it's mandatory.With this formula it is stated that: No heat engine can ever be moreefficient that the ratio of its temperatures. That means that W/Qin(Work / Heat supplied) cannot surpass the Carnot eta. Note here thatall power stations and engines run according to the latter. That ofcourse puts us into a straight jacket as far as power generation andpropulsive machinery is concerned.I will soon conclusively prove that Carnot's formula is wrong! I willuse Carnot's own formula and the normal/usual one of (W/Qin) basedupon reliable data that is available to all of you. And it will bedone on two Carnot/Rankine cycles. Where will that leave thetextbooks? Yep, the ones for which you spent so much money.Why do I start this in an NG? Does anyone really believe that there isany chance that when Carnot is disproved that the academic communitywill even remotely admit that experts who wrote textbooks wrote? Besure that it will be stonewalled. Since Carnot is so ultra important Itake the liberty to cross post this to a number of newsgroups,including to political ones (there are engineers and scientists too,also, this is revisionism at it's hardest core). Once Carnot hasfallen, there will two more demi-gods to go, and believe me they willfall too. Then science and engineering will be out of straightjackets, and we can think freely again. That will also explain why Idon't disprove of Carnot straight away but announce it first, thethread/posting concerned will be titled: CARNOT...

Feb 21, 2004 27 Replies

Rate this thread:

DFD 22 years ago

I am scribbling furiously, there's a reason why I used such unusual approach. Will post within the next few days, meantime, here's the source of the data that I will use:

Source of data: NBS/NRC Steam Tables by Lester Haar, John S. Gallagher and George S. Kell; publisher: Hemisphere Publishing Corp.; part of NSRDS (National Standard Reference Data System, USA). The tables are the result of research work by IAPS.

I will refer to two Rankine cycles, so as to compare like with like, difficult to include diagrams in here (google/Yahoo), however, the diagrams referred to will Ps diagrams. The usual squares/rectangles where the vertical = pressure and the horizontal = entropy.

Thanks and regards Dietmar

Vote

Herman Family 22 years ago

Again, we eagerly await your conclusive results. Proving Carnot wrong would most definitely be newsworthy and open the world up to some rather interesting possibilities. We are quite familiar with the steam tables, so it is a great place to prove your point. At this point we aren't too concerned with how you do it, as long as the data is used correctly and your observations are valid.

Michael

Vote

charliew2 22 years ago

This is definitely not true. Carnot defined the maximum efficiency that can be achieved with an ideal reversible heat engine. This efficiency is still less than 100%. A perpetual motion machine would require at least 100% efficiency to work.

(cut)

Vote

Coriander Lexus 22 years ago

OK, I should have said "Perpetual motion machine of the second kind", but I figured the distinction would probably have been lost on the originator of this thread.

A perpetual motion machine of the first kind creates energy out of nothing. One of the second kind can tranfer heat from a cold reservoir to a hot reservoir: ie violates the Clausius statment of the second law: "It is impossible to construct a device which operates in a cycle and produces no other effect than the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter body". (Such a machine could eg power a ship by extracting energy from the ocean leaving behind chunks of ice, the energy so gained being used to propel the boat. It is certainly a kind of perpetual motion machine even though no energy is being created or destroyed.) Talking about the "efficiency" of a perpetual motion machine of this kind is meaningless.

The Carnot efficiency is a consequence of this formulation of the second law.

Vote

jim andrews 22 years ago

I'm pretty sure most reputable physicists would say that the zero-point field is real, but rather difficult (and perhaps impossible) to manipulate.

Regarding the original post -- were I a betting man, I'd go with Carnot. (No offense to DFD intended.)

jim andrews

Vote

jim andrews 22 years ago

I dunno, Utah?

jim andrews

Vote

Robert Kim 22 years ago

Somehow in the recesses of my deteriorating memory, I seem to remember one of them relocating to Michigan. The other, maybe still in Utah? Both are no longer with the university, though, I think. At least one tried, or is trying, to make cold fusion a commercial success somehow.

Bob

Vote

Robert Kim 22 years ago

Oops, I stand corrected. They got a little further than Michigan. Told you my memory was going.

***** Quote from

formatting link

"Other cold fusion researchers were likewise reviled - especially Pons and Fleischmann, who eventually retreated to the south of France, where Pons adopted French citizenship."

Vote

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required