Hi Jonathan, This is my first message to this mailing list. I used only observe the conversation but your message convinced to reply.
First, I'd note I didn't read fully your message but only skimmed it and I saw your remark point on the link which was supposed to "prove your point" on 2nd law. <https://gizmodo.com/scientists-create-230-percent-efficient-led-bulbs-5890719> > In their experiments, the team was able to generate 69 picowatts of light > from just 30 picowatts of energy. They did so by harnessing waste heat, which > is caused by vibrations in the bulb's atomic lattice, to compensate for the > losses in electrical power. The device also reacts to ambient heat in the > room to increase its efficiency and power the bulb. This means that they only used some ambient energy kinetic / heat caused by power propagation losses on the wire. ( so still zero sum law is preserved in bigger "box" aka closed system ) No 2nd law has been yet empirically disproved ( because you can't prove something true in physics using mathemical terms ). Kind regards, EOL On June 14, 2024 11:37:02 AM GMT+02:00, Jonathan Berry <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi, so I have this year become quite convinced that I have found flaws in >Carnot's concepts and how it has been used and how it makes the second law >able to be broken. > >It is based on the following truths: > >1. Carnot heat engine efficiency is NOT related to input energy (the >thermal potential) but to *total* thermal energy on the hot side and as >such it is meaningless and the true efficiency possible relative to >the invested energy is 100%. Consider an environment where everything is >300 Kelvin and we heat up a reservoir from 300 to 400 Kelvin the invested >energy in 1/4th of the total energy in the reservoir and the Carnot >efficiency is 25%. If we have the cold side at absolute Zero Kelvin 100% >of the energy can be used and Carnot's equation tells us it is 100%! And >if everything is at 1 Billion degrees and we heat up the reservoir 100 >degrees hotter than anything else the Carnot efficiency drops to 0.00001% >and again only 0.00001% of the total thermal energy in the 1,000,000,100 >Kelvin reservoir is our input energy! >https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/carnot-efficiency > >2. If we use the ideal gas law (PV=nRT) to calculate the increase in >pressure of a gas between these 3 temp ranges we find that in each case the >100 degree Kelvin temp rise creates the EXACT SAME PRESSURE INCREASE (from >0 to 100K, 300 to 400K, 1B to 1B+100K) and therefore if the same force is >placed on a piston and equal amount of thermal energy will be converted >into mechanical energy from the same amount of invested energy. This >includes in the Carnot heat engine efficiency is meant to be just >0.00001%. So for our 100 Kelvin of thermal energy invested we get the >same energy out regardless of the offset temp even though the Carnot >efficiency changes WILDLY! > >3. The energy we have not input (the ambient thermal energy in the >reservoir) can be ignored much as can the energy stored in the matter as >e=mc2, this is both because we didn't invest it, it isn't lost (it remains >in the reservoir) and because it's percentage of the total energy become >insignificant if the reservoir is being actively heated as the thermal >energy is being actively used. So not only is it relevant it is also over >time a tiny and truly insignificant amount of energy as something runs over >hours let alone months, years or decades the amount of input energy dwarfs >the tiny initial thermal ambient energy. > >4. If the efficiency of a heat engine in relation to the heat energy >invested to run it can reach 100% of the input energy in theory (A Carnot >ideal heat engine) then the fact that heatpumps have a COP of easily 5 but >can do as high as 30 in literature but even that is not the max and won't >include the simultaneous "waste" cooling which a heat engine can also use! >But the point is if a heat engine can always have a max >theoretical efficiency of 100% and a real world efficiency of 60% or higher >and heat pumps produce 5 to 30 times more heat than if that energy was >directly converted to heat... Then we have first off no basis to explain >the efficiency of heat pumps as "reverse Carnot cycle" but also this means >that the efficiency of one is NOT the reciprocal of the other, a heat pump >is not more efficient over a temp range where ideal heat engines are >inefficient as their efficiency is always 100%! > >5. Carnot also argued that all ideal heat engines operating between the >same 2 thermal potentials must have the same efficiency and if some had >higher or lower efficiencies the lower efficiency then the second law could >be broken as the more efficient one can drive the less efficient one as a >higher COP heatpump (lower thermal equivalent of lenz law drag on a >generator) and this could create a perpetual motion machine, well first off >he was assuming that the smaller the thermal difference the lower the heat >engine efficiency which we now know is always 100%, but if it was like he >thought his arguments breaks down when we put either 2 or more heat engines >in series (each heat engine is over a smaller thermal potential and would >have a lower efficiency) or 2 or more heat pumps cascaded can have a huge >COP (10, 20, 30 or maybe even higher, not that more than 2-3 is needed) and >an arbitrarily high thermal potential between the hot and cold side. > >6. While a Heat pump COP of 3 might be enough to drive a heat engine >running (based on real world heat engine efficiencies) to close the loop, >the following can be considered, firstly a COP 5 heatpump is quiet >available but the cooling COP (EER) is going to be similar but a little >lower, say 4.7 or so, well as the heat engine needs a hot and cold side the >colder than ambient cold is just as useful (depending on the heat engine >technology and we can offset the whole experiment if we like) and as such a >COP of 5 becomes closer to a combined COP/EER of 10, and also the rated COP >is running hard out 100% of rated power, when running at lower power the >COP of a commercial heatpump can be higher (double or better!) and go to a >COP of 10 anyway which would not be a COP/EER of 20 when we consider both >sides. Next the compressed gas is just let to expand but expanding gases >can be used to drive pneumatic motors, when this has been used to lower the >load on the compressor the compressors load is reduced by up to 90% when >air was the refrigerant! It might be lower for systems using gasses that >undergo a phase change but a 50% reduction would again double the COP >again! As such while heat engines that operate at 50-60% are not >unreasonable the COP can be so high that even if the heat engine efficiency >was 10% it should be possible to make this work, any way you do the math >there is AMPLY room between the high COP's of potentially cascaded >heatpumps (allowing high temp differences over any temp range) and the >real-world efficiencies of heat engines to have, even after every type of >loss, loop the system, and remember as 100% of the excess heat (thermal >potential over and above the cold side which is below ambient) can be in >theory be converted even a heat pump with a COP of 1 with an EER on the >cold side of 1, that's a combined value of 2 and so with a truly ideal but >theoretically possible heat engine even a heat pump with a hot side COP of >1 (which ignores it's theoretically 100% efficiency as a resistive load >also) could have twice as much mechanical energy output than input! > >Carnot efficiency is, well it's the wrong word, if I have a hydro dam that >is half full and I fill it up with water and then let the water out and >with 100% efficiency convert the energy to electrical power but when the >damn gets half empty I stop it, then does that mean my exceptional >generator has only a 50% efficiency?! No! It has 100% efficiency and for >some reason or another I left water in the Damn, same with Carnot, you >leave thermal energy that was always in the reservoir, but that shouldn't >be conflated with efficiency! If I have a generator that is 100% >Efficient but the Copper and Steel it is made with could offer Galvanic >energy as a battery if allowed to, should we subtract that energy that it >could offer us to lower the efficiency rating of the generator??? Clearly >that would be absurd! > >So Carnot Efficiency has been presented to tell us several things, that low >grade heat cannot be converted to other forms as efficiently to other forms >of energy compared to higher grade heat, however even if functionally this >is often true in practice Carnot's Efficiency (η=1−TC/TH) tells us no such >thing and as such it's possible in theory to find better ways, I would also >note that pressure increase is linear with temperature difference and as >such I suspect in theory that the efficiency of a heat engine (akin to a >Stirling Engine) could operate with the same efficiency over any >temperature even if the engineering might be unrealistic/complicated. > >It also doesn't tell us that heat pumps must have a higher COP over smaller >temperature difference (and the reasons this seems to be so might be due to >other factors such as sizing of tubing and radiators which are known to >have huge impacts on efficiency) as their COP is not a result of Carnot >Efficiency or Reverse Carnot Efficiency. > >It doesn't explain why heat pumps have a COP much above 1 and why that >isn't a violation of the second law and as it isn't because of Carnot >Efficiency then there is no reason a heat engine can't output more >mechanical energy from a heat pumps thermal outputs than drives the heat >pump, and the heat engine is not barred from being 100% efficient (which if >the COP of a heat pump is 30 that means 30 times more mechanical energ out >than in) and the COP of the heat pump is not explained as a reversal of >Carnot Efficiency as the Efficiency relative to input is 100%, but if it >were somehow related to Carnot "pueudo-Efficiency" it would be that the >hotter the ambient the higher COP the heat pump and not about the >difference between the hot and cold side as we have established that has no >impact on any underlying efficiency calculation, in part because the ideal >gas law is linear, though maybe with phase changes higher COP can be >achieved, but again even if a heat pump's COP were higher at low temp >differences you can cascade them to make an arbitrarily large temp >differences at arbitrarily high COP, seemingly a COP of 60 should be >possible maybe higher, I can document a COP 30 from scientific papers and >also a COP of 20 from another and again they don't include the cold side >and likely weren't recovering energy stored and generally wasted from the >pressurized refrigerant which typically just goes through a valve. > >The second law is really Philosophy masquerading as Physics, the Philosophy >of "there is no free lunch" and yet both the philosophy and its >embodiment in Physics is contracted by logic and evidence at least under >the correct conditions. > >I would also note that there was an LED that MIT made that created cooling >and output 230% more energy: >https://gizmodo.com/scientists-create-230-percent-efficient-led-bulbs-5890719 > >So the second law is dead and a lot of Physicists don't truly believe in it >(Sabine Hossenfelder for one) and it's better to pull the plaster off >because when we do we can make heatpumps that power houses, power cars >potentially! > >It is clear to me as it can be that my argument is conclusive, it isn't >flawed and I'm not misunderstanding Carnot's work or how it has been >interpreted or how he used it or how it has been interpreted by the world >over the past 200 years since 1824. > >Also while it might be said that Carnot's Theory wasn't really trying to >address the input and that it's merely been "misunderstood" it is clear >that from many sources the arguments I have debunks many conclusions that >have been held of what Carnot's work implies, indeed I asked an LLM just to >double check the conclusions that are normally drawn and they are what I >have busted above. > > >So if no one can point out some massive flaw which I don't believe exists, >then it seems the value to the world from this being recognized could be >significant. >And so I think a peer reviewed paper should be written and I might as well >start off here. > >So let me know what you think. > >Any agreements? Disagreements? Want to help me write this like a paper? Do >you have any tips on getting this published or who I could take it to? > >Should we just ignore massive errors in Physics that cost the world >immeasurably and let things continue??? > >Should possible discoveries be ignored without even trying to see if they >make sense? > >Do you understand? > >Can you disprove this? > >Thanks, >Jonathan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Imagine the following. >We have a hot reservoir, we put a piston to it and the gas becomes hot, >when it becomes hot enough we allow the piston to move thereby letting the >gas expand and become cooler and we get mechanical energy output, if the >only warmth was absorbed by the gas then the gas could have actually have >expanded to the point of having no more heat than the cold side and as such >we could do without a cold side almost! > >Nevertheless let's assume it's a bit warm, we let it touch the cold side >and then the gas cools off and a force is developed and finally we let it >collapse the Pison, more energy and again it's hot, more energy goes into >the cold side until it's as cold and compressed as it will get. > > >Note, another way to look at the Efficiency of a heat engine is not to >consider the total thermal energy in the thermal reservoir, but to consider >how far the thermal energy that does move, well how far IT falls. >However while we might come to the conclusion that the energy going from >400 Kelvin to 300 Kelvin is only spanning 1/4 of the total distance it >could go, we must realize than it we put the same amount of energy in at >zero Kelvin and raised int to 100 Kelvin it would have the same distance to >fall and would be the same investment of energy, so that it has the same >distance to fall as in the example with a Carnot Efficiency of 100% means >that with respect to the energy added we have the same efficiency of >conversion.
