Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Thermal engines and beginning of absurdities in ..

Thermal engines and beginning of absurdities in thermodynamics

The present study questions the validity of Carnot (considered father of this science!) studies about thermodynamic.
Two simple experiments are proposed.
In a first experiment a steam engine is feed with a nitrogen gas under pressure greater then 15 atm and having a temperature equal with surroundings. The engine steam works fine with this configuration; more than that, the body of the engine cool down during engine working and the surroundings must supply heat to such engine.
The logical conclusion of experiment: in order to perform useful work, a motor needs a gradient of pressures and not a gradient of temperatures as actual thermodynamics accepts.
In a second experiment some diesel engines are tested using solid combustible materials. It is known that diesel engine was designed for solid combustible material (charcoal), but due to rapid degradation of cylinders and pistons, later, liquid combustible have been used.
At beginning a magnesium or aluminium dust are used as solid fuel. Both these substances react strongly exothermic with oxygen. I have chosen these materials because during combustion reaction, there is a contraction of volume for reaction products. More precisely metallic dust and formed oxide are solid and only oxygen is gas.
When a diesel engine is feed with this solid fuel, due to the contraction of volume the yield of engine is diminished. The heat generated in reaction is not sufficient to power the engine with a high yield. In certain conditions (increase of combustible quantity and use of pure oxygen as gas) the yield of engine goes down to zero. This is because the increase of quantity of combustion materials, decrease the amount of gases which remains in the cylinder after combustion, so the pressure gradient decreases.
The case of combustible materials which burns without modification of volume is analysed too.
Finally, the common combustion of octane is analysed and it can be found that actual ,,thermal engines” are in fact gradient pressure engines working mainly on the volume gradient an not on temperature gradient. They are working because during combustion, there is an increase of reaction products volume and this is the main factor which drives the engine.
The text analyse the possibility to increase the actual yield of a combustion process.
For engines, actual approaches takes into account as useful only the gradient of pressure due to volume increase and release as useless the enthalpy of reaction. Of course, sometimes part of this enthalpy is used to warm the interior of the car, but all the rest is thrown away. Using a secondary thermodynamic cycle this enthalpy of reaction can be converted in mechanical work too and in this case the total yield of combustion can be even doubled.
On the other hand, in other kinds of combustions, only the enthalpy of reaction is used and the gradient of volume is discarded. For example, into a thermoelectric factory, the fuel is burned at atmospheric pressure and the gradient of volume is lost. In this case, only the enthalpy of reaction converts some water in steam and after that an electric generator is forced to rotate with a yield of about 25% . If the combustion is performed in expandable volume, able to transform the volume gradient into pressure gradient, and after that the enthalpy of reaction is used in a secondary step to generate steam the total yield can be greater then triple of present one.
As it can be seen, theoreticians invented stupid cycles which are far away of what is happen in reality. Combustion in an engine or at atmospheric pressure is working after complete different principles then theoretical physicists’ imagination. Of course such theoreticians need another life to understand the absurdities of their writings.
I do not expect from such theoreticians to do something to improve the actual situation. They, like an inferior charcoal, are producing a lot of smoke without a real mechanical work. In fact they have been polluting intellectual atmosphere up to a such advanced level then it is impossible for a simple mind to find the truth.
But, I expect from those really interested in engines design and fuels consume reductions to appreciate my works.
As soon as possible I will contact the main cars and electricity producers in order to present them a translated version of my studies.
As usual the reference text is only in Romanian at this link:
http://www.elkadot.com/ro/termodinamica/Combustia.htm

Soon, there will be available the translated version in French, English, Spanish and Italian .
Best regards,
Sorin Cosofret

So what? Compressed air motors are used all the time in industry.




Nobody will ever appreciate this result because
a) You won't defend your logic against criticism.
b) You won't built a prototype to prove that it works.

Even if somebody else rediscovers this later, you won't get the credit because you didn't actually show anyone that it works. You'll be forever forgotten among the sea of cranks, and somebody else will take the Nobel prize.

Read a manual of physical chemistry again ....!




When you will raise a criticism regarding my experiments I will answer. To talk only because you have a lot of free time ...it is not my character.
Of course a spoiled physicist will try to copy my experiments, corect the english vocabulary and to gain a Nobel price. And what ? I will not be the single one who created something remarkable without being rewarded. Edison and Tesla are striking examples.

OK great! These are my old questions about your experiment with the radioactive source generating free electrons and ions.

Points 2, 3 and 4 you've roughly answered by saying you had a collimator. I want to know how it was arranged so I can visualize where the particles might go. Can you draw a sketch?



1. You don't show that your instruments were sensitive enough to detect the expected signals. It isn't valid to say "no electric current can be measured" or "no positive signal can be detected in ionization chamber". There will always be more sensitive instruments that you didn't use.

2. A moving charged particle in a magnetic field should move in a curved path. It could very well complete a circular path within the ionization chamber and eventually recombine without generating any net current in the circuit.

3. Even if they did reach the electrodes, there would be some electrons directed toward the upper electrode, and some to the lower one, cancelling out any possible current in the circuit.

4. I suppose the average direction of the released electrons may be to the right as you say. But it could be by a tiny amount that you can't measure. Maybe 50.00001% go to the right and 49.99999% go to the left.