Integral conversion of heat into mechanical work and other absurdities in thermodynamics
The text analysis some possibilities of increasing the yields of combustions for thermal engines and in the same time, questions the possibility of bulk transformation of heat into mechanical work. The heat transformation into mechanical work is a favourite subject of discussions and it seems that subject becomes more a philosophical debate instead of a scientific one. It is known that 80% of world electric energy is produced by burning of combustible materials (coal, petrol etc) and the consequences of this activity are becoming more evident in pollution, climate change etc. Terrestrial and maritime transports have their part of contribution to this stress on Earth systems. Therefore this discussion is important not only for physicists, but for politicians too. In the text, some simple ideas are advanced and it ca be demonstrated that yield of actual combustion process can be at lest doubled in absence of any political arrangement. As consequence this increase in yield can have as result a greater quantity of electric energy production with a diminishing of secondary effects on Earth ecosystem. The text analyses some patents where water is added as emulsion or directly injected into an engine cylinder in order to increase the yield. From orthodox thermodynamic point of view this is an absurdity. Because only a weird man can think that adding water to a combustible material can increase the mechanical work, when in fact the combustion power decreases! But the situation is not like that. Then a new improved Rankin cycle is proposed in order to boost the yield of a thermoelectric factory. More than that, it is proposed an experiment where entire quantity of heat produced into a chemical reaction is transformed into mechanical work. The experiment is very simple. A mixture of methane and air is combusted into a recipient kept at -80°C and having a thick layer of solid CO2 on the internal part of recipient’s walls. In this way, hot gases resulted into reaction, produce sublimation of CO2 (at -79°C), and the generated gas increase the pressure into system and force a mechanical piston to slide to right. Assuming the layer of CO2 is thick enough, as far the temperature of gases inside recipient is greater then -79°C, there will be a continuous sublimation of gas molecules, without heat loss outside system. More than that, this incipient engine works being in contact with a single reservoir of temperature and, in this way, is contradicting all philosophy of actual thermodynamics. The yield of the entire process is related to the background temperature of entire system, but this is another story. Of course, in practice such experiment can arrive to a yield of 90 to 95%, but from theoretical point of view there are no restrictions to convert all heat into mechanical work. It is quite difficult to have such piston and to cover an internal wall with a layer of CO2 solid in order to not have a gas escape. Therefore, in practical approach it can be used a box in box system with an elastic membrane able to extend when internal box moves. Cost of the experiment, in Romania conditions, less then 5000 euro. The same experiment in developed west will arrive at few hundreds of thousand euros. In fact I know people who refuted research contracts of few hundreds of thousand Euros only because the documentation for such project does not worth the effort. So, I will expect that such research project will arrive to a price of few millions of euro, when in fact the real cost is quite nothing. Finally, it is proposed, like a curiosity, an engine working based on solid carbon dioxide as combustible. Such engine, have to work on a 3 step cycle: feeding, expansion and evacuation. I think such engine could have applications in space industry or even in Man to Mars missions. The link: http://www.elkadot.com/ro/termodinamica/Combustia2.htm As usual Romanian version is the reference. Further translations will be provided. I think I made an error in previous message. Theoreticians need half a millennium to understand some experiments and not one or two centuries as specified before. For understanding some new concepts, they need even more time! With or without their help the face of physics will be changed. In fact, they have been becoming very expensive ballast into a race and they need to be discarded! The problem is, there is none to explain them the fact they are making figuration and there is no mechanism to push them out of the well warmed chairs where they are sitting spending money on nothing. Best regards, Sorin Cosofret -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
