*"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 difference will create a dramatically more efficient heat engine not because low grade heat can't be converted efficiently but because the conservation of energy seemingly doesn't apply thermal conversion at all UNLESS I and apparently science it terribly wrong about the thermal capacity of a gas at a constant density being generally constant (unless there is phase change or very low pressures and temps where the ideal gas law is known to fail). And please, explain to me where I am wrong about this one, this one is fresh and I am more that happy to be corrected, but there is also evidence among the many claims of Free Energy that indicates that an engine run from electricity is possible, I just assumed it required some very weird physics, turn out physics might just be weird enough as is! Jonathan On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 at 23:35, Jürg Wyttenbach <ju...@datamart.ch> wrote: > 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 0.00001% > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Jürg Wyttenbach > Bifangstr. 22 > 8910 Affoltern am Albis > > +41 44 760 14 18 > +41 79 246 36 06 > >
