Re: [Vo]:Peer Review

[Jonathan Berry]

*"With a Carnot cycle/heatpump combination you cannot reach > 100%"*

If we just assume that the second law is correct, then you are correct,
that it cannot.

But if I ask you why not when there is a thermal potential 2, 3 or 30 times
larger (OR MORE, technically a case for a COP+EER of 60 can be made based
on a published paper's claim of COP only being 30) than it would be created
by say a resistor with the same input energy...

And when the thermal potential between the hot and cold side can with such
an extremely high COP be arbitrarily large due to cascaded heatpumps...  So
we are not limited to a low thermal potential, not that that should matter
because as I have shown the maximum theoretical efficiency of conversion of
heat to mechanical energy is linear due to the ideal gas law having a
linear relationship between temperature and pressure.

Then how would it be logically impossible to convert more of the thermal
potential energy (when I have shown relative to the thermal potential
Carnot Efficiency allows potentially 100% conversion efficiency! and real
world heat engines can hit 66%) than the input?

Not possible to convert a mere 1.6%, that's right with a Coefficient of
Performance of 60 (including the EER) we would only need 1.6% to loop it!

So we have only few possibilities, one is that the Coefficient of
Performance of heatpumps that has been reported is wildly inaccurate and it
would need to be that the combined COP+EER was limited to no more than the
maximum theoretical efficient heat engine efficiency, as the maximum
theoretical efficiency based on the thermal potential (not the gross
thermal energy on the hot side) I have shown to be actually 100% then this
means heatpumps don't work, but there too we would have a problem as the
heat from the hot side of a heat pump would need to be LESS than just using
a resistive heater because the "waste" cold side represents half of the
thermal potential difference!  And even if this were claimed it is
problematic as logically/theoretically heat pumps have a 100% theoretical
efficiency as a resistive load (put the hot and cod output of a heatpump in
a box so the 2 outputs mingle and cancel and you should still have by the
time no sound escapes the box about the same efficiency as a resistor) but
this is an ADDITIONAL 100% to the action as a heat pump!

So a heat pump with a COP of 1 really has a COP+EER+Resistive/friction
output of 3!
Normally the heatpump makes a little use of the thermal output by soaking
up some of the heat output from the compressor which I'm sure is why the
COP on the hot side is a  bit higher than the EER on the cold side.

Another is that the Efficiency of real world heat pumps and even
theoretically perfect heatpumps is way too high, I have shown conclusively
that the maximum theoretical (Carnot's Ideal...) heat engine efficiency
relative to the thermal potential is actually 100%.
As such in theory if heat pumps have ANY total thermal output from the
addition of the cold side, the hot side and the resistive output that
exceeds the thermal potential from a mere resistive load (assuming
resistive loads are not somehow less than 100% efficient) then the second
law CANNOT stand!  And yet how can the COP+EER+Resistive/frictional heating
be only 100% when the Resistive part should be 100% all by itself and the
COP is claimed to be as much as 30 times greater and the EER would be
another roughly 30 times...

Or the second law is in practice able to be violated even if in theory it
can't be!

While thinking about this I found an additional problem that I don't think
can be answered, above I made an assumption that didn't sit quite right.
If we have a gas and we raise it's temperature by say 100 Kelvin and we get
5 PSI and this pushes on a piston we get a certain amount of mechanical
energy based on a given force over a given distance.

If we input twice as much thermal energy it's increase in temperature is
doubled to 200 Kelvin and this leads to a doubling in pressure as the ideal
gas law would predict and the piston moves in effect double the distance to
equalize pressure and so it does double the mechanical work?  Nope, it does
4 times!?

But we have double the energy input and x4 the mechanical energy out!?
If we double it again, we get x16 times more output for 4 times more input
energy!

I ran this by an LLM, we even looked at it as a spring to verify,
compressing a spring a millimeter at a time assuming a linear increase in
pressure of half a pound per mm (why not mix units willy-nilly) compressing
it over 1cm and increasing the pressure to 5 lb of force took a quarter of
the energy that it took to compress it 2cm increasing it to 10 lb of force.

Therefore the energy a spring needs to be compressed or delivers as it is
decompressed increases by square of the pressure!
But thermal energy increases pressure in a linear relationship!

This will create the ILLUSION of the misunderstood Carnot Efficiency where
a higher thermal diff

Re: [Vo]:Peer Review

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Jonathan,

With a Carnot cycle/heatpump combination you cannot reach > 100%.

But.. OF course the second law only holds for such simple processes.

We have nano particles that can double the frequencies of photon 
standing waves due to mode suppression.



The main problem is that historically physics is built upon ideal 
processes that nowhere exist.


The second problem is that we have different layers of energy in 
physics. Nuclear physics violates Carnot laws as e.g. fusion reduces the 
entropy. So its a matter of engineering to harvest excess energy and to 
define a better law.


A better definition would be that the energy you can gain from a closed 
system is limited.


J.W.

On 14.06.2024 11:37, Jonathan Berry 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 0.1% and again only 0.1% 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 0.1%.   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 arbit

Re: [Vo]:Peer Review

[End Of Line]

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.



> 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 
 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 0.1%
>and again only 0.1% 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
>0.1%.   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 ther

[Vo]:Peer Review

[Jonathan Berry]

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 0.1%
and again only 0.1% 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
0.1%.   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