NuclearError

If you are so sure that this debate is worth it, I am OK. But you seem to say that the previous posters of this thread have covered all the negatives and they say that this system doesn't work. So why debate about anyway ? I guess that this is just the end of this thread. You are not open for discussion and perhaps are you not willing or don't even have any idea how the system works. And perhaps you don't even care. I am not willing to debate with non scientific people. I believe that the system can work, in theory. But is it worth debating with people like you ? I am back to PesWiki. I have better things to do. Good bye.

Dear neonsignal, Perhaps is this true, perhaps not. In any case, the companies you are naming are not within the scientific subject we are contemplating on this board. I thought that we were having a good debate here. Perhaps is this board not the place I want to be after all. I should perhaps go back to the PESWiki board. There at least we can speak with real people and have real debates on real environmental issues. Your reply also consumes energy and favors global warming. Perhaps do you favor that ?

I believe we have here is a Stirling engine with the Kender engine. This video here is in German (I am from Germany), but you will get the essence of it. A Stirling engine runs on a temperature differential. The air inside changes temperature quite fast, allowing for the cycle. The cycle is also possible with cold. The second video shows it with a little ice cube on the top. That differential is enough to make the engine spin. Here is another example. This shows that you can extract mechanical energy from a temperature differential, whether above our 293K or then below the 293K. What we need to demonstrate, is that it takes more energy to create a hot source than to create a cold source. I can demonstrate that creating a cold source takes less energy than creating a hot source. Therefore, the Stirling engine with a cold source is more efficient than a Stirling with a hot source. That is what I am saying here. I am not saying that the Kender engine is fantastic or super-efficient or even works, I am saying that an engine working on cold is more efficient than an engine working on heat. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIndeed, I am saying the opposite of what you say.

Indeed, it takes more energy to take a temperature upwards than downwards (for the same differential). We assume that the same temperature differential (whether above our 293K or below) produces the same mechanical energy. This, in theory, says that an engine working on cold is more efficient than an engine working on heat (with an initial temperature at 293K). I am indeed saying that. Let me get to my calculations and I will soon be back...

It takes much less energy to create a temperature differential going downwards (say 293K to 60K) than going upwards (say 293K to 526K). I have to go back to my formulas to show you the difference. I don't have them with me right now. But I will get these when I get back soon.

You say that is has no heat sink ? How can you say that ? In a heat engine, you have a hot source (say 500 K, inside) and a cold sink (293K, outside). This temperature differential allows for mechanical energy. Mechanical energy makes electrical energy. Here you have 210K in differential, therefore you can extract mechanical energy. I see 2 different temperatures in the Kender engine. One is at 293 K (outside) and one is at 60K (inside). A temperature differential means that you can extract mechanical energy. This is what you have here also. Call one temperature the sink and one the source, it is the same. You have a differential in temperature, therefore you can get mechanical energy. I don't see how you can say that there is no source and sink. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedYour justification for the Kender engine not to work is that "you" don't see the source and the sink. That is not a lot of an argument. I say that there "is" a temperature differential. Therefore a source and a sink. And therefore mechanical energy.

I don't think it is rubbish. And I don't think you understand the working of a heat pump. For me it is a heat pump, a heat pump throwing out mechanical energy instead of heat...

It is not what, Mr. Skeptic ? Not a heat pump ? What do you mean, there is no heat sink ? When you create a cold, such as in a refrigerator, and you pull the plug of the refrigerator, keeping the door closed, what happens to the air inside the refrigerator ? 1. Does the outside air drop in temperature, to finally meet the temperature inside the refrigerator ? 2. Or does the air inside the refrigerator move up in temperature to finally reach the temperature of the surrounding air ? I say that it is the second version, which is correct. In a heat pump, a cold is created inside the nitrogen circuit (usually in the range of -15 C). The outside air (usually at -5 C in a cold environment) is sucked through the heat exchanger and what happens ? The air is dropping in temperature inside the heat exchanger and then, when it comes out, it rises in temperature again, as it is blown away into nature. And what happens to the nitrogen, which was brought to -15C in the circuit ? Its temperature rises back to -5C, the same temperature as the outside temperature. So here you have an example of the temperature of the gas in the closed circuit "rising spontaneously" to the surrounding air temperature. What you are saying in your text is that a heat pump cannot work. But indeed it does. Unless you have a different explanation on how a heat pump works ? I say that if you pull the plug of a refrigerator, the air inside the refrigerator rises back to the outside temperature. A small portion of the air in contact outside the refrigerator might drop in temperature (due to the exchange), but that air is blown away and ultimately will rise back in temperature to the surrounding original temperature. What you are saying goes against the heat pump... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pump

Dear Mr Skeptic, I have been reading this board for some time and remain intrigued by your comments. Perhaps have you seen the video on the Kender Website. the way I understand the technology is the following: Indeed, the total energy extracible at most, is equal to the energy collected by the solar panel times (1 minus the temperature of the heat sink divided by the temperature of the solar panel), then minus internal losses. Indeed, also, these temperatures are measured in Kelvin. But here is where I believe that you are wrong: I understand that the temperature of the heat sink is 60K, a temperature obtained by expanding the helium in the closed circuit. So what I understand is this: Energy out = 1 - (60K / 293K) * Energy in This gives a COP of 79%, excluding the losses. It is somehow the same type of calculation as for an air-air heat pump. Also, the size of the panel is irrelevant. What is important for calculating the energy coming out, as for a heat pump, is how much air you can shoot through that panel (or heat exchanger)... As you know, the COP for a heat pump can be in the range of 300% (which is a nonsense number, as long as you don't add the thermal capacity and volume of the air going through the exchanger). I believe we have here a simple heat pump with something new attached to it...