You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Physicists help needed!!! Current technology limitations.
- Thread starter Tirstan
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Light said:Cool it, dude. I'm trying to be civil and purposefully avoid name-calling. Are you attempting to fire it back up again?
You have been deliberately misrepresenting my words for a couple of pages here and you call it trying to be civil. Who's trying to fire what? Jesus Christ. People are going to think that you are a paid troll.
MetaKron said:You have been deliberately misrepresenting my words for a couple of pages here and you call it trying to be civil. Who's trying to fire what? Jesus Christ. People are going to think that you are a paid troll.
Besides your "In the eyes of many" business, exactly where else do you claim "misrepresentation?"
MetaKron.
In the case of an internal combustion engine like you're probably familiar with what you are calling fuel efficiency is the same thing as thermal efficiency. Engineers and scientists tend to use that term.
What percentage of the Low Heat Value of the fuel is being converted into useful work is what I think you are trying to get at. This is what I was referring to earlier when I said some modern spark-ignited natural gas engines approach 43%. Large Diesels are typically in around 37-38% efficient. Spark-ignited gasoline engines are a bit less efficient.
Light,
As a post-script I have read the thread. MetraKron's refusal to believe that the heat pump - which demonstrably works in "real life" - doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics is what I was referring to in my earlier post where I said his posts where somewhat maddening....
In the case of an internal combustion engine like you're probably familiar with what you are calling fuel efficiency is the same thing as thermal efficiency. Engineers and scientists tend to use that term.
What percentage of the Low Heat Value of the fuel is being converted into useful work is what I think you are trying to get at. This is what I was referring to earlier when I said some modern spark-ignited natural gas engines approach 43%. Large Diesels are typically in around 37-38% efficient. Spark-ignited gasoline engines are a bit less efficient.
Light,
As a post-script I have read the thread. MetraKron's refusal to believe that the heat pump - which demonstrably works in "real life" - doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics is what I was referring to in my earlier post where I said his posts where somewhat maddening....
Light said:You aren't being paid anything and I've presented no inconsistencies at all. You, however...
Like I said, not paid enough.
Flunch, Light puts on his show just to split up anyone who is having a productive conversation. He isn't just a troll, he is one of the more toxic varieties, the kind that sells poison pills for major pharmaceutical companies. Not that I think much of you anyway if you buy into it, but people like him deliberately disrupt things.
So why do we think that Carnot efficiency has anything to do with fuel efficiency? It takes only a very slightly higher order of thinking. One equation tells you how much energy you put into the system. The same equation tells you how much energy you can get back out of the system. The equation cannot tell you whether your theoretical limit of fuel efficiency is any number except 100 percent.
I really can't believe that any significant number of mathematically literate people have fallen for the interpretation of the Carnot equation that claims that you get low efficiency from heat engines that work at low temperature differentials. The equation is simple and its correct interpretation is simple.
I really can't believe that any significant number of mathematically literate people have fallen for the interpretation of the Carnot equation that claims that you get low efficiency from heat engines that work at low temperature differentials. The equation is simple and its correct interpretation is simple.
MetaKron said:So why do we think that Carnot efficiency has anything to do with fuel efficiency? It takes only a very slightly higher order of thinking. One equation tells you how much energy you put into the system. The same equation tells you how much energy you can get back out of the system. The equation cannot tell you whether your theoretical limit of fuel efficiency is any number except 100 percent.
I really can't believe that any significant number of mathematically literate people have fallen for the interpretation of the Carnot equation that claims that you get low efficiency from heat engines that work at low temperature differentials. The equation is simple and its correct interpretation is simple.
It seems pretty clear that the only "people" here that have fallen for an incorrect interpretation is you. Why don't you back off and go study it again because you sure missed it the first time around!
And NO - I'm not about to walk you through it like I did with heat pumps And neither will anyone else that read all of it and saw how thick-headed you dealt with it. I had to shove the information into you and not one single time did you ever admit that you had anything wrong.
Yes, the equation is simple and the correct interpretation is simple - and you've gotten it wrong! (Again)
Light said:It seems pretty clear that the only "people" here that have fallen for an incorrect interpretation is you. Why don't you back off and go study it again because you sure missed it the first time around!
And NO - I'm not about to walk you through it like I did with heat pumps And neither will anyone else that read all of it and saw how thick-headed you dealt with it. I had to shove the information into you and not one single time did you ever admit that you had anything wrong.
Yes, the equation is simple and the correct interpretation is simple - and you've gotten it wrong! (Again)
You are a liar.
I really can't believe that any significant number of mathematically literate people have fallen for the interpretation of the Carnot equation that claims that you get low efficiency from heat engines that work at low temperature differentials. The equation is simple and its correct interpretation is simple.
You're joking right? :bugeye:
Ok Metakron, you are right. Millions of scientists and engineers are incorrect. That seems like the most likely situation.
MetaKron said:You are a liar.
Hardly, that's the problem with you - not me. And I can easily prove it by going back and pulling direct quotes from your posts. Do you want me to do that? You will be terribly embarrassed.
In the meanwhile, do you agree with the latest post from Valich, which, in essence says that you are the only one who is right and thousands (millions) of scientists and engineers ALL have it wrong? That's exactly what your statements add up to.
Flunch said:You're joking right? :bugeye:
Ok Metakron, you are right. Millions of scientists and engineers are incorrect. That seems like the most likely situation.
No, I am not joking. Yes, millions of scientists and engineers are correct. No, I am not going to try to explain it to you again.
Flunch said:....no clue whatsoever.
Lay it on the table MetaKron - what is you formal training in this area? Do you have any? It sounds like you're self taught.
Absolutely right, Flunch, no clue at all.
He has no formal training, he's just a kid. I'll give you my educated guesses about him. (Of course he'll deny all of it in typical adolescent fashion.)
Based on his word usage, premature degree of understanding, rude and confrontational behavior and a few other clues, I'd say he's 16 max and almost certainly home schooled. The latter is derived from the time-periods he's online and the fact that he's never once mentioned school, teachers, friends or other activities of any sort. In may ways he'd very similar to Dwayne Rabon but just a little more sophisticated. Not much, but a little. He doesn't exhibit the same mental symptoms as Rabon - who has a serious problem and is obviously under medication. Instead, the problem here is primarily a matter of age and poor attitude. Put simply, he's a spoiled brat and little more than that. I'd also venture to say he's an only child. Fits the picture very well.
(He's probably fuming at this point so I'll stop and cut him a little slack.)
Flunch said:....no clue whatsoever.
Lay it on the table MetaKron - what is you formal training in this area? Do you have any? It sounds like you're self taught.
I'm not going to tell you that.
I already gave you all the information you need.
MetaKron said:I'm not going to tell you that.
I already gave you all the information you need.
Pretty much what I would expect. A "regular guy" wouldn't mind a bit about telling you he's in high school, or was graduated from college, or what courses he took (and didn't take) and so forth.
We already pretty well knew what kind of guy we had here and this just confirms it. A nobody. With nothing.
Flunch said:....no clue whatsoever.
Lay it on the table MetaKron - what is you formal training in this area? Do you have any? It sounds like you're self taught.
Let me apologize for my tone in that last reply. I've been letting someone get to me, and he is now on ignore.
It doesn't matter in the least how I learned what I learned. Formal training can screw up your perceptions pretty good sometimes. Take the equation and figure out what it says and what that means. Try to think without someone giving you permission first.
A young man hired by a supermarket reported for his first day of work. The manager greeted him with a warm handshake and a smile, gave him a broom, and said, "Your first job will be to sweep out the store." "But I'm a college graduate," the young man replied indignantly. "Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that," said the manager. "Here, give me the broom -- I'll show you how."
For the time being, names will remain nameless, but, it has happened that a highly degreed and overly educated person has made and uttered such goofy mistakes about orbital mechanics that an excellent case can be made that degrees and formal education are easily found to be worthless in a person's ability to deal with actual physical reality.
Anyone who disdains a person's self education is a fool who is itching for a fight they will not walk away from.
Anyone who disdains a person's self education is a fool who is itching for a fight they will not walk away from.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.