I'm sad to see this group dwindling. - Page 4

 On 5/3/2013 10:35 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong...to maintain the superfluid, you have to keep
the end sections above 374F.  If you don't use superfluid, you can keep
the cold ends at ambient.  That almost doubles deltaT.  What properties
do you gain from the superfluid that surpass that?

I can't support the argument, but my gut tells me that the mass of the
medium matters.  For massive media, you have less physical movement.
F=MA.  So, for the fluid "sloshing" back and forth in the engine,
the frequency is inversely proportional to the mass of the medium.
You want the path length of the "slosh" to be greater than the diameter
of the pipe.  You want movement over the whole length of the magnetic  
field.  More heavy ions may not be better.  For a fixed amount of energy
to accelerate 'em, maybe you want fewer, faster moving ions???

I have a second gut feeling.  If you have two pressure waves in opposite
direction, what happens if you put an obstruction in the center of the
pipe?  Does the pressure wave in the opposite direction differ from
a reflection off the obstruction in the middle?  Stated another way,
can you run two half-pipes in parallel using the same magnetic
field for both constrictions?

Damn, I keep having gut feelings...
In a conventional MHD you start with a plasma and send it thru the magnet.
The ions do their thing and the whole mess gets sent out the exhaust.
In a closed system, you have to recreate the ions.  Assuming that
takes energy, how much does that subtract from the total output?



I can understand that for Helium, but isn't Ethanol about the same
mass as water?  Critical pressure is about 1/7th.

Pretty much the same way you ionize water...you don't.
You put something else in with it.
But I am thinking more in terms of plasma where you just supply
enough energy to make it come apart.

Standard development process is to start with a theory, propose an  
implementation,
predict the results, then build it to verify results.

I have asked for links to sites that describe your working theory.

This has become polarized.  Not my intention.

I've been probing you for information/understanding.
So far, I've got buzz words and generalization.

Let's say I wanted to duplicate what you're doing, but start small.
Ignoring the superfluid and the MHD for the moment and concentrating
on the heat engine.
I take my Bunsen burner and a chunk of glass tubing.
I heat the glass and stretch it to neck down a section.
I close up the ends.  I heat the hot end and cool the cold end.
Should I be able to detect the acoustic wave created by the gas
oscillating back and forth?  If not, what else do I need do?
What should be the relative lengths of the hot section, cold
section and reduced diameter section?

Telling me to google it won't help either of us.  You should be
able to articulate in a few sentences what to do to make it oscillate,
cuz that's the basis of your project.

I'll go up in the attic to see if I can find the Bunsen.
I really am trying to learn and help.

  On 5/4/13 3:18 AM, mike wrote:


Reduction of viscosity and greater ?P.


The frequency depends more on the rates of heat transfer and ?P. Note  
that within the ionized working fluid, we may be dealing more with  
charge migration than actual movement of the atoms themselves...


I think this might be a really good question. I?ll guess that the  
practical solution will be two distinct (synchronized) fields.


You might be over-thinking here. In a closed system the radicals aren?t  
destroyed, they just gain or lose electrons, and both the radicals and a  
portion of the heat energy are recycled.


I don?t have good numbers for ethanol, but (intuitively, from the Ideal  
Gas Law) ?P should then also be about 1/7th.


Yeah, I?m probably approaching it all wrong - I have no theory and am  
looking to discover whether observed results from other work can be used  
to effect a pair of energy conversions simply and inexpensively.


The buzz words are search terms which lead to the specific information  
you seemed to want. In blunt words, you aren?t entitled to spoon  
feeding, and I have neither the time nor the energy to do so.


That was my starting point and, from experience, it?s a good one.


You?ve made an incorrect (but unfortunately common) assumption - the  
engine parameters do NOT scale in linear fashion.


Okay, a few sentences of intro: It is a thermodynamic state machine with  
exactly four distinct states, none of which are stable, and it is  
constrained to transition between these states in strict sequential  
order. The independent variables which determine the states and the  
transitions between them are energy, pressure, volume, and time. It?s  
useful to think of temperature as another independent variable. The  
relationships which describe at least two of the transitions are non-linear.

The (ugly) answer to your request: You make it oscillate by choosing the  
coordinates for the four states and building a mechanical (plumbing)  
construct which supports those states and the transitions between them,  
and then applying (and removing) thermal energy as per your design. If  
your design and construction are good, the damn thing will cycle.


It?s not as simple as either of us would like, and I?m really not the  
right guy to teach anyone thermodynamics, heat transfer, or fluid  
dynamics (all of which come into play). What I have learned has been the  
result of focusing very narrowly on those portions of needed disciplines  
which seem to apply - and most of what I learned I organized as best I  
was able, added photographs and data plots, and put on web pages to share.

Having done that, I find myself unwilling to re-type it all into usenet  
posts. I?m leaving those footprints behind and trying to move forward.  
Simply put, I don?t have time to rehash old stuff while I?m struggling  
with the stuff that?s still undone.

Something that might help if you decide to build: It seems easier to get  
larger engines working than smaller ones, especially for those just  
getting started.

--  
Morris Dovey
http://www.iedu.com/Solar/Engines  

 
amdx wrote:

Unfortunately, given current economic conditions many who would like to
experiment with AE/RE are not able to to any meaningful extent.

 On 5/1/13 3:27 PM, Pete C. wrote:

It is tough, but that?s not really new. Let share a favorite old quotation:

?We the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the  
ungrateful. We have done so much, for so long, with so little, we are  
now qualified to do anything with nothing.?

...Mother Teresa

I think I know how she felt when she said that. :-)

 On 4/30/2013 7:38 PM, amdx wrote:

FYI:  I'm still here on a daily basis, and chime in when I have  
something to add to a conversation.

Vaughn