Guys, Rauen patented a series of thermodynamic cycles (US #6,698,200) and designed and built a prototype of an engine concept that embodies the Proell effect. The prototype did not run due to poor piston seals and excessive friction of its moving parts. Pressure instrumentation of the motored engine showed the theoretically identified cycle was occurring, but work generated did not exceed losses. Corrections to the design were precluded by lack of funds. Instrumentation showed the process did work. The science was right, but the engineering was wrong. A different mechanical configuration was needed for practical engines. Rauen gave lectures about his work on the Proell effect and its application in heat engines at three international science conferences. Physics professors attended all three. None found flaws. From a practical point of view, it has passed peer review. Several mathematical proofs exist.
Rauen experimentally verified a thermodynamic process proposed by Wayne Proell, which he named: “the Proell effect.” It is the complete energy transfer analysis of the constant volume (isometric) process of classical thermodynamics as applied to displacement and regeneration, found in the Stirling Cycle. The Stirling Cycle has two constant volume processes that negate the Proell effect around one cycle by equal and opposite energy flows, so conventional thermodynamics had no reason to study the details as Proell did. Classical thermodynamics missed this opportunity. The upshot of the Proell effect is that thermal energy is transferred across macroscopic distances (greater than the mean free path of a gas) by molecule-to-molecule collisions across temperature gradients without work input to the process. This circumvents the randomness of the 2LT. The results of this theoretical and experimental work were published in *Infinite Energy* magazine. That research paper is posted under SECOND LAW SURPRISES on the website. Rauen patented a series of thermodynamic cycles (US #6,698,200) and designed and built a prototype of an engine concept that embodies the Proell effect. The prototype did not run due to poor piston seals and excessive friction of its moving parts. Pressure instrumentation of the motored engine showed the theoretically identified cycle was occurring, but work generated did not exceed losses. Corrections to the design were precluded by lack of funds. Instrumentation showed the process did work. The science was right, but the engineering was wrong. A different mechanical configuration was needed for practical engines. Rauen gave lectures about his work on the Proell effect and its application in heat engines at three international science conferences. Physics professors attended all three. None found flaws. From a practical point of view, it has passed peer review. Several mathematical proofs exist. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE RAUEN PISTON ENGINE INVENTIONS These inventions go beyond the prior art by totally converting heat from an energy source into mechanical work, allowing an engine of the present invention to interface with only one thermal reservoir. When only one thermal reservoir is required, the heat source can be the traditional heat sink, the environment. Heat inside the engine is converted into work, the engine becomes cold, and heat flows from the environment into the engine according to the correct interpretation rather than the traditional understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics has limitations on its applicability, just as Quantum Mechanics showed that Newtonian Mechanics did not apply on the atomic scale. The Second Law does not universally apply to heat engines, as previously believed. There are conditions under which the Second Law does not apply, where the randomness of heat, identified by the Kinetic Theory of Heat and Statistical Mechanics, is not random in its conversion into work. The general scientific explanation behind this invention of the non-universality of the Second Law of Thermodynamics has been conceptually and experimentally proven and published as the Proell Effect, though not yet widely accepted in the mainstream scientific community. These inventions, 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 contemporary work of Chris Hunter and pioneering ideas of Jacob T. Wainwright in the early 1900s. Like Sadi Carnot's first arguments for the Second Law of Thermodynamics in 1824, Wainwright’s ideas were incomplete and partly incorrect, but Wainwright's ideas provided the inspiration for this invention. The inventions correct and complete the theoretical concepts initiated by Wainwright. 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 <janap...@gmail.com> 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 <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> Well, OTEC is a good metaphor – but without disagreeing with Jed’s >> assessment, the operative detail left out is that empty “space” is a >> rguably 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 <*jone...@pacbell.net* <jone...@pacbell.net>> 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. >> >> >
