It is unfortunate that the prototype did not run per your note. If it had run as expected then you might find stronger acceptance of the concept.
Perhaps the inventors are mistaken in their understanding and the meters which indicated positive results were misread or interpreted incorrectly. As you are well aware, it is quite easy to make mistakes in these types of measurements. Also, since the current understanding of the laws of thermodynamics would strongly indicate that the machine could not function as expected, and that is what was seen, perhaps those laws are correct. It is going to be necessary for inventors making a claim of this nature to prove that they are not attempting the impossible. So far that standard has not been achieved. Heat energy is systematically converted into thermal radiation which can then leave the local thermal environment. This radiation can drive photo cells producing electricity that can be converted into mechanical energy. In a way, this is equivalent to what is claimed except that the radiation leaves the local region instead of remaining. If it can be shown that photo cells located within the single sink can produce electrical energy that is tapped, then you might well be able to prove your supposition. Does anyone know of experiments that demonstrate that photo cells can convert heat or light radiation from a sink in which they are located directly into electrical power? It is obvious that this is true for cell located at a distance contained within a cooler sink. My bet is that the conversion efficiency approaches zero as the temperature of the two sinks become equal. If not, then the invention has possible merit. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Mark Goldes <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Sep 24, 2015 4:32 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES Guys, Rauen patenteda series of thermodynamic cycles (US #6,698,200) and designed and built a prototype of anengine concept that embodies the Proell effect. The prototype didnot run due to poor piston seals and excessivefriction of its moving parts.Pressure instrumentation of the motored engine showed the theoretically identifiedcycle was occurring, but work generated did not exceed losses. Corrections to the design wereprecluded by lack of funds. Instrumentationshowed the process did work. The science was right, but the engineering waswrong. A different mechanical configuration was needed for practical engines. Rauen gavelectures about his work on the Proell effect and its application in heatengines at three international science conferences. Physics professors attendedall three. None found flaws. From a practical point of view, it has passed peerreview. Several mathematical proofs exist. Rauen experimentally verified athermodynamic process proposed by Wayne Proell, which he named: “the Proelleffect.” It is the complete energy transfer analysis of the constant volume(isometric) process of classical thermodynamics as applied to displacement andregeneration, found in the Stirling Cycle. The Stirling Cycle has two constantvolume processes that negate the Proell effect around one cycle by equal andopposite energy flows, so conventional thermodynamics had no reason to studythe details as Proell did. Classical thermodynamics missed this opportunity.The upshot of the Proell effect is that thermal energy is transferred acrossmacroscopic distances (greater than the mean free path of a gas) bymolecule-to-molecule collisions across temperature gradients without work inputto the process. This circumvents the randomness of the 2LT. The results of thistheoretical and experimental work were published in Infinite Energymagazine. That research paper is posted under SECOND LAW SURPRISES on thewebsite. Rauen patenteda series of thermodynamic cycles (US #6,698,200) and designed and built a prototype of anengine concept that embodies the Proell effect. The prototype didnot run due to poor piston seals and excessivefriction of its moving parts.Pressure instrumentation of the motored engine showed the theoretically identifiedcycle was occurring, but work generated did not exceed losses. Corrections to the design wereprecluded by lack of funds. Instrumentationshowed the process did work. The science was right, but the engineering waswrong. A different mechanical configuration was needed for practical engines. Rauen gavelectures about his work on the Proell effect and its application in heatengines at three international science conferences. Physics professors attendedall three. None found flaws. From a practical point of view, it has passed peerreview. Several mathematical proofs exist. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE RAUEN PISTONENGINE INVENTIONS Theseinventions go beyond the prior art by totally converting heat from an energysource into mechanical work, allowing an engine of the present invention tointerface with only one thermal reservoir. When only one thermal reservoir isrequired, the heat source can be the traditional heat sink, the environment.Heat inside the engine is converted into work, the engine becomes cold, andheat flows from the environment into the engine according to the correctinterpretation rather than the traditional understanding of the Second Law ofThermodynamics. The SecondLaw of Thermodynamics has limitations on its applicability, just as QuantumMechanics showed that Newtonian Mechanics did not apply on the atomic scale.The Second Law does not universally apply to heat engines, as previouslybelieved. There are conditions under which the Second Law does not apply, wherethe randomness of heat, identified by the Kinetic Theory of Heat andStatistical Mechanics, is not random in its conversion into work. The generalscientific explanation behind this invention of the non-universality of theSecond Law of Thermodynamics has been conceptually and experimentally provenand published as the Proell Effect, though not yet widely accepted in themainstream scientific community. Theseinventions, different from the inventor’s earlier U.S. Patent: No. 6,698,200, which is based upon the Proell Effect,aim to approach 100% conversion of heat into work, are inspired by the contemporarywork of Chris Hunter and pioneering ideas of Jacob T. Wainwright in the early1900s. Like Sadi Carnot's first arguments for the Second Law of Thermodynamicsin 1824, Wainwright’s ideas were incomplete and partly incorrect, butWainwright's ideas provided the inspiration for this invention. Theinventions correct and complete the theoretical concepts initiated byWainwright. Sorry for some redundancy in the above. There is more about these engines on the aesopinstitute.org website. Obviously, only a working demonstration will prove Rauen is correct. A White Paper about these engines is available with a signed NDA. Mark Mark Goldes Chairman, CEO, AESOP Energy LLC 707 861-9070 AESOP Institute website: www.aesopinstitute.org On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: The resent work by Holmlid show that muons are produced by rydberg matter. I now believe that rydberg matter was a product of the Papp engine plasma process. Notice that both Holmlid and Papp produce no heat and very high speed neutral particles from explosive rydberg matter fragments. The Papp engine produced excess electrons as a decay product of muon production as seen by Holmlid. Papp used alpha decay from radium to extract these excess electrons to power an super capacitor based alternating duel cylinder system. Without this radioactive charge capturing system, the Papp engine does not work. No radium means no electron capture. The arc discharge from the "bucket" electrodes that held the radium greatly increased the positive charge produced by alpha decay of the radium as a LENR based reaction. This extremely high positive charge on the electrodes is what attracted the excess electrons from the plasma and produced the back current that drove the piston firing cycle. On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: Well, OTEC is a good metaphor – but without disagreeing with Jed’s assessment, the operative detail left out is that empty “space” is arguably the virtual heat sink which would express temperatures near absolute zero (on paper). The idea is that ambient heat transfers to a virtual heat sink, which is very cold. Of course, the normal way to do this is via a refrigerant, but refrigeration takes work. Mark mentions propane – a refrigerant (it is not burned). For Papp, xenon and other noble gases do the same. Can one cool via a refrigerant using the same work which is later harvested? Mainstream science of course says … (shouts)… NO WAY. Anyone who witnesses a bona fide the Papp replication attempt (not the “popper” LOL) … often comments that the engine runs cold. Why? It is part of the M.O. I suspect, but do not know – that Rauen’s engine will run cold (assuming it is working). I hope to be among the first to witness this. From: Jed Rothwell Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: Like the Papp engine, there will be strong disagreement over the thermodynamic issues involved . . . That is putting it mildly! I think most people would say it is a flat-violation of the laws of thermodynamics. You cannot run anything on "atmospheric heat" because the atmospheric temperature is uniform, except on a giant scale that I do not think any human technology can achieve at present. I guess you could tap atmospheric heat if the heat sink is outside the atmosphere, like a gargantuan OTEC generator in air instead of water. As for Papp, there is an overload of worthless anecdote still floating around the net, but no independent evidence to suggest that a functional prototype was ever built. It is all “stand” (with lots of arm waving) and no “deliver”. Ha, ha! Well said. One thing for sure, Papp and Rossi seem to have been cast from the same mold – part inventor, part showman, and 100% controversial. Yup.
