Question of thermodynamics

[Obamot]

Always NO connection ... with sauerkraut

[teatime]

However, if we look at the point of view of the second cycle, then this operation of "cutting" of the
Carnot cycle shows a completely different face: a thermodynamic cycle (the second cycle) receives
heat at the temperature of the hot spring (which is ideal for its own efficiency) ...
but it turns out that another thermodynamic cycle (the upstream cycle), is located between the source
hot and itself, and produces work without giving heat to the cold source and without
degrade the temperature of the hot spring ... From the point of view of the second cycle, the upstream cycle is
pure profit.

It seems to me that this sentence, which is at the heart of the reasoning, omits an important point: the use of the "upstream" cycle as a supplier of heat to the "second" cycle is not identical to a source of heat at the hot temperature. It requires the "second" cycle to include isobaric heating of the temperature of the cold source to that of the hot source.
Suddenly, the "second" cycle can no longer be any cycle, and therefore there is no longer any paradox in the fact that it cannot achieve Carnot's efficiency when considered as an isolated cycle.

thank you Gaston for your answer (this is the only answer that deserves a "thank you").
Yes, that's also what I think, you have to find a second cycle that can be fed with a counter-current exchanger and not the hot spring.
We must therefore take the time to see whether or not there is a suitable secondary cycle. We can not exclude it at full speed ... we must review everything.

[Obamot]

However, if we look at the point of view of the second cycle, then this operation of "cutting" of the
Carnot cycle shows a completely different face: a thermodynamic cycle (the second cycle) receives
heat at the temperature of the hot spring (which is ideal for its own efficiency) ...
but it turns out that another thermodynamic cycle (the upstream cycle), is located between the source
hot and itself, and produces work without giving heat to the cold source and without
degrade the temperature of the hot spring ... From the point of view of the second cycle, the upstream cycle is
pure profit.

It seems to me that this sentence, which is at the heart of the reasoning, omits an important point: the use of the "upstream" cycle as a supplier of heat to the "second" cycle is not identical to a source of heat at the hot temperature. It requires the "second" cycle to include isobaric heating of the temperature of the cold source to that of the hot source.
Suddenly, the "second" cycle can no longer be any cycle, and therefore there is no longer any paradox in the fact that it cannot achieve Carnot's efficiency when considered as an isolated cycle.

thank you Gaston for your answer [...]

Yes, that's also what I think, [...]

Mmmmmmwouahahahahahahahahahaha!

But then where did all these alleged CES go "Great Discoveries in Thermodynamics!"

[Oooops, sorry.] Here I am folded

[teatime]

However, if we look at the point of view of the second cycle, then this operation of "cutting" of the
Carnot cycle shows a completely different face: a thermodynamic cycle (the second cycle) receives
heat at the temperature of the hot spring (which is ideal for its own efficiency) ...
but it turns out that another thermodynamic cycle (the upstream cycle), is located between the source
hot and itself, and produces work without giving heat to the cold source and without
degrade the temperature of the hot spring ... From the point of view of the second cycle, the upstream cycle is
pure profit.

It seems to me that this sentence, which is at the heart of the reasoning, omits an important point: the use of the "upstream" cycle as a supplier of heat to the "second" cycle is not identical to a source of heat at the hot temperature. It requires the "second" cycle to include isobaric heating of the temperature of the cold source to that of the hot source.
Suddenly, the "second" cycle can no longer be any cycle.

Yes

... and therefore there is no longer a paradox to the fact that it cannot reach Carnot's yield when it is considered as an isolated cycle.

you are going too quickly to the conclusion ... this "therefore" is not correct.
the limit is calculated on the document as being equal to 30,7% (for the example they give) if I remember correctly ... This is where it plays out.

[Obamot]

[dedeleco]

The second principle of thermodynamics is the great Dogma of Science and scientists who openly question it are excommunicated ...

Is it not because they are more or less aware of their weakness and they refuse to face it?
Hence their arrogance, their claim to know ...

but look at the history of science !!!!!!!!!!! ..........
.

but no, teatime can run his machine freely, show that the alleged dogma is false, (in reality billions of experiences repeated in thousands of different forms),
and liberate humanity from this dogma, by making it possible to do what is currently impossible, such as a boat or power plant engine, giving electricity, leaving ice in rivers and seas, and thus, liberating of humanity, with this ice, it will save us from global warming due to CO2, and it will offer us many other fantastic techniques.

With Gaston, I invite teatime, to look at his double exchanger with great care and to calculate how much entropy there is lost !!!
Instead of vague "point of view" etc ...

It is funny to see, repeatedly, people, coming out of models and calculations, based on the basic principles (energy conservation, or Carnot principle) to obtain, that these same principles are no longer valid, without wonder that they are making mistakes and look for where they went wrong, instead of asking others to do it for them, for stubbornness, to refuse reality.

Please change the title of this forum in :


Several monumental errors in thermodynamics !!

[teatime]

With Gaston, I invite teatime, to look at his double exchanger with great care and to calculate how much entropy there is lost !!!
Instead of vague "point of view" etc ...]

You don't even know how thermodynamicists think!

who coined the expression "ideal gas" in your opinion?

in the same way, one will think, in the case which interests us today: "heat exchanger with ideal or perfect counter-current"

it is funny to see, repeatedly, people, going out of models and calculations, based on the basic principles (energy conservation, or Carnot principle) to obtain, that these same principles are no longer valid, without wonder that they are making mistakes and look for where they went wrong, instead of asking others to do it for them, for stubbornness, to refuse reality.
]

We must not confuse "theory" and "reality" ...

Then your reasoning seems to be like:
I see yellow ingots passing every day ... and there are so many ignorant people who claim that they are gold ... I am tired of scratching to discover pieces of wood ... or worse. .. never will we see a real gold bar!

What a funny reasoning ...

Several monumental errors in thermodynamics

but of course ... since you are so sure of yourself, it will surely be easy for you to tell us what these errors are (on the document).
We wait.

[dedeleco]

Instead of refusing to see your mistakes and wasting your time in dreams, with an imaginary exchanger without loss of entropy, I invite teatime to read and think about microscopic thermodynamic bases

The length of time's arrow:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.0025v1

[teatime]

Instead of refusing to see your mistakes and wasting your time in dreams, with an imaginary exchanger without loss of entropy, I invite teatime to read and think about microscopic thermodynamic bases

The length of time's arrow:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.0025v1

that's enough dedeleco!
if we could not think in the ideal then thermodynamicists would refrain from using the concept of "ideal gas" for example.

[teatime]

Instead of refusing to see your mistakes

mistake ?
however, no errors were identified.
refuse to see?
I wait, I ask to see them if only someone finds them ...

if someone has the spirit to distort the truth in this way ... then we can (we must) wonder about this someone ...
So who is this "dedeleco" really?

How can you both mock the truth and keep your head high?
mystery...