A Real "Maxwell's Demon"?

[Tom Booth]

I think that maybe this could actually work, almost.

Feel free to ask questions about this here, but for expediency, an explanation of the theoretical operation of this Maxwell's Demon can be found here:

https://stirlingengineforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5338&p=18503#p18503

 

Edited February 10, 2023 by Tom Booth

[Bufofrog]

If you think you can violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics I can assure you that you are mistaken.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

From rule 2.7

members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. 

IOW, you can’t just tell someone to go someplace else to read the content necessary for the discussion

You’ve been told this a number of times

 

[Tom Booth]

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

From rule 2.7

members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. 

IOW, you can’t just tell someone to go someplace else to read the content necessary for the discussion

You’ve been told this a number of times

 

I thought the annotations on the diagram should be sufficient for most people. And the diagram is pretty self explanatory I think. The link is just some additional more in depth explanation for anyone who might need it or want it, but if anything about the diagram isn't clear, I'm here to answer questions.

1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

If you think you can violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics I can assure you that you are mistaken.

No, of course not. If valid, violating a law of the universe is impossible, naturally. But some machines might appear to violate the second law, but of course there is always an explanation.

This "thought experiment" is based on some well established and demonstrated principles, like "adiabatic bounce", heat of compression, cooling by expansion, balance beams and so forth.

Oh I forgot to mention that instead of a steel ball, This device used a magnetic ball or cylinder coated with ferrofluid. Likewise with the counterbalance plunger and pivot bearing.

Theoretically the components then are nearly frictionless in operation and so consume almost no energy.

[Tom Booth]

Incidentally the counterbalance could rotate to one of two positions.

If it is turned upside down, this would reverse the heat separation so the more energetic hot air molecules would end up at the top of the chamber the cold at the bottom.

In case it isn't clear to everyone, the red and blue object inside the large base is a regenerative heat exchanger. The red, naturally represents the hotter side, blue the colder. But as pointed out, if desired this could be reversed.

The large heat exchanger is composed of material similar to very fine steel wool in thin layers that the air in the chamber passes through as this light weight heat exchanger is worked up and down due to the changes in pressure within the "bounce space" relative to atmospheric pressure.

The black square is a counterbalance made of some heavier material, so that the small block on the right matches the weight of the regenerative heat exchanger perfectly.

The little ball above the counter balanced is another small ferrofluid coated magnet in a very small cylinder. This creates a perfectly air tight frictionless seal the same as the larger heavy ferrofluid covered magnet.

 

[Tom Booth]

The pivot arm is designed in such a way that the regenerative heat exchanger stays horizontal as it is lifted and lowered.

[Tom Booth]

Focusing attention on the lower large chamber with the heat exchanger, and the movements of the heat exchanger:

When the ball/piston falls and the pressure increases the regenerative heat exchanger is lifted upwards due to the increase in pressure, (acting on the little ball attached to the pivot arm counter balanced weight), relative to atmospheric pressure.

Such upward motion while the air is being heated by the heat of compression results in heat being taken up from the hotter compressed air by the cooler regenerator mesh material that the air is passing through as the heat exchanger moves upward through the chamber.

When the piston "bounces" back upward and the pressure drops the heat exchanger is lowered down through the now cooler expanded air. The heat is released from the now hotter heat exchanger back to the now colder air.

The heat is returned.

Always, as the adiabatic bouncing of the piston continues, the heated and cooled portions of the air in the chamber are kept separated.

 

Edited February 10, 2023 by Tom Booth

[Ghideon]

There seems to be four stirling engines in the first picture, what are those for?

[Tom Booth]

38 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

There seems to be four stirling engines in the first picture, what are those for?

Nothing related to the function of the Maxwell's Demon itself. But if a temperature difference can be maintained, that would be something that could be done with the ∆T. Run a thermal differential engine or two, or three, or four or eight or whatever.

The action of the pivot arm, counterbalance, actuated by changes in pressure is similar to this compressor driven heat pump, except that the compressor piston function is carried out by the adiabatic bouncing piston.

In this patent drawings the space above the heat exchanger actuating mechanism or "cold finger" on the right is comprised of an air spring type buffer space rather than being open to atmosphere.

 

An additional possibility that just crossed my mind:

An air tube (blue on right) could be attached to the top of the counterbalance cylinder and positioned near the top of the compressor piston tube to take some advantage of the pressure changes taking place there.

As the large ball/piston drops, the pressure in the tube above the piston will tend to fall. The slight vacuum would help with the pivot arm motion, likewise, the increase in pressure above the large piston when it bounces back upward should assist the motion of the smaller piston.

1 hour ago, Tom Booth said:

Such upward motion while the air is being heated by the heat of compression results in heat being taken up from the hotter compressed air by the cooler regenerator mesh material that the air is passing through as the heat exchanger moves upward (downward rather) through the chamber.

I just noticed I had misspoken there, but too late to edit.

When the regenerator moves down, the air flows up through it.

When the regenerator (heat exchanger) moves up, the air flows back down through it.

Edited February 10, 2023 by Tom Booth

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, Tom Booth said:

Nothing related to the function of the Maxwell's Demon itself. But if a temperature difference can be maintained, that would be something that could be done with the ∆T. Run a thermal differential engine or two, or three, or four or eight or whatever.

Ok. How about conservation of energy? 

[Tom Booth]

3 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Ok. How about conservation of energy? 

What about it?

The Maxwell's demon (this one anyway) does not generate any energy or heat, it just sweeps up the already existing heat.

The area from where the heat was swept up, of course, is left cold.

This is akin to gathering firewood.

Naturally, though, if heat is taken away from some area, more heat will tend to move in to take it's place, then that can be swept up as well.

A similar counterbalance was utilized in the P-19 Low Temperature differential engine described by James Sent, which ran for two weeks on the temperature differential produced by a wet sponge (evaporative cooling):

The idea being that the regenerative displacer, being perfectly counterbalanced by a weight requires virtually no energy to move up and down and yet serves to reclaim potential waste heat. The efficiency of such recuperative heat exchangers is reportedly as high as 95%

[Ghideon]

33 minutes ago, Tom Booth said:

What about it?

Are we discussing what is possible according to established laws of physics or new/modified laws of physics?

 

[Tom Booth]

The movable regenerative heat exchanger in the P-19 was incorporated into the styrofoam displacer, in this manner:

The air passages cut out of the styrofoam were filled with the regenerator material consisting of a light weight metal mesh.

Regenerative displacers of this type are fairly common with "Ultra low temperature difference" type Stirling engines nowadays.

The Vuilleumier heat driven heat pump also incorporated such regenerative displacers.

As expressed by the Wikipedia article on the subject:

Quote

 

The interesting characteristic of the Vuilleumier machine is that the induced volume variations are realized without the use of work, but thermally...

...The displacers do no work—they are not pistons. Thus no work is required in an ideal case to operate the cycle. In reality friction and other losses mean that some work is required.

 

 

26 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Are we discussing what is possible according to established laws of physics or new/modified laws of physics?

 

I don't think in terms of "Laws of Physics" generally.

In modern scientific method theories are postulated and subject to empirical verification and are  experimentally validated or not.

In that spirit, this is not any discussion about any "Laws" new or old. Just a theory about how a potentially real Maxwell's Demon might operate.

A regenerative displacer in a Stirling engine, or in a Vuilleumier machine behave in a manner that IMO very much resembles a Maxwell's Demon, effectively marshaling the heat to one side of an air filled chamber. Virtually no work is involved in accomplishing that. It is just a matter of allowing the heat to do what it does and move into a colder object or material.

During compression the temperature of the air is elevated above that of the regenerator, so the heat transfers to the colder regenerative material. During expansion, the air cools and therefore the heat moves back out of the now relatively hot regenerator and back to the cooler air.

The counterbalanced regenerative displacer is virtually or effectively weightless and only needs to be moved back and forth, or up and down a small distance in order to effect a movement of heat from one location to another location where it is then  deposited.

Such a process does not require any overthrow of any well established and experimentally verified "Laws of Physics" that I'm aware of.

Edited February 10, 2023 by Tom Booth

[Ghideon]

26 minutes ago, Tom Booth said:

Such a process does not require any overthrow of any well established and experimentally verified "Laws of Physics" that I'm aware of.

Bold by me. Awareness about the limits of physics may save time; focusing efforts on what is possible and rejecting the impossible ideas early.

 

[studiot]

9 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

If you think you can violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics I can assure you that you are mistaken.

 

10 hours ago, Tom Booth said:

I think that maybe this could actually work, almost.

 

Doesn't this violate both the first and second laws of this forum ?

 

[Bufofrog]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Doesn't this violate both the first and second laws of this forum ?

I don't think it does.

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Tom Booth said:

In that spirit, this is not any discussion about any "Laws" new or old. Just a theory about how a potentially real Maxwell's Demon might operate.

!

Moderator Note

You can’t separate these. Any operation of a device must be based on established physics. Some of the ones in thermodynamics are referred to as laws.

Hand-waving is no substitute for rigorous analysis 

 

[Tom Booth]

7 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Bold by me. Awareness about the limits of physics may save time; focusing efforts on what is possible and rejecting the impossible ideas early.

 

To me "Awareness about the limits of physics" reads "preconceptions about...."

"...focusing efforts on what is (assumed to be) possible and rejecting the (presumed to be ) impossible ideas early (or prematurely).

With an arrogant attitude, presuming we already know everything there is to know about the universe, there would never be any further progress in human understanding.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Any operation of a device must be based on established physics.

That's quite a mouthful

 

Having, I think, fully described the theory and mechanics of the proposed device itself, what aspect of the theory and operation is contrary to established science? Established when, by whom, using what empirical methodology and based on what experimental data.

I seem to be about the only one to have actually read through the rules of this "speculations" forum making some effort to adhere to the guidelines.

Are we to accept 17th century scientific "Law" based solely on the grandfather clause?

Edited February 10, 2023 by Tom Booth

[Ghideon]

49 minutes ago, Tom Booth said:

With an arrogant attitude, presuming we already know everything there is to know about the universe, there would never be any further progress in human understanding.

That's why I keep my mind open to new ideas* and use heuristics to navigate around old failed stuff. I know for instance that a Perpetuum Mobile of Villard de Honnecourt does not work; it does not matter if it is painted in a new color. 

 

Regarding the idea in the opening post; do we neglect the mass of some of the moving components? 

 

 

*) In my profession new ideas emerge almost daily. Not new physics but new ideas that really challenges what is established.

Edited February 10, 2023 by Ghideon

[Tom Booth]

Quote

I can state flatly that heavier than air flying machines are impossible. — Lord Kelvin, 1895

 

3 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Regarding the idea in the opening post; do we neglect the mass of some of the moving components? 

This is better.

Can you elaborate?

Has something like mass, or any other physical property been neglected?

What did I overlook?

But no, we are not intentionally postulating an "ideal' machine, without mass, or friction if that's what you mean.

The emphasis should be on the word "Real".

Idealizations, machines with zero mass and so forth are not "real".

31 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I know for instance that a Perpetuum Mobile of Villard de Honnecourt does not work

How do you know that?

Not being familiar with it, this Honnecourt device, I just took a look at it.

Honnecourt apparently never referred to this machine as a "Perpetuum Mobile". Rather he called it a self-moving Hammer wheel, or something to that effect.

His notebook is otherwise full of down to earth, very practical building techniques and so forth.

To me, this Hammer wheel looks like simply a labor saving device employed perhaps, for hammering metals, copper plate, Iron, that sort of thing.

Such a device would be used in conjunction with an anvil.

As I've crudely illustrated here:

 

Does that perhaps change the dynamics of the machine?

Have you ever worked as a blacksmith?

What happens when a hammer strikes an anvil? For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction.

So under actual use, in real circumstances, the hammers would bounce back up from the anvil, perhaps maintaining the "overbalance". Is that possible? Should my hypothesis be tested?

At any rate, an ingenious labor saving device even if it requires an assistant to turn a crank, the weight of the hammers is balanced.

Saves someone the work of continually lifting these massive weights to pound wrought iron. A very practical blacksmiths tool and nothing more. Or could it actually be "self turning"?

Whoever tested it under real world conditions. Actual use?

 

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Tom Booth said:

To me "Awareness about the limits of physics" reads "preconceptions about...."

"...focusing efforts on what is (assumed to be) possible and rejecting the (presumed to be ) impossible ideas early (or prematurely).

With an arrogant attitude, presuming we already know everything there is to know about the universe, there would never be any further progress in human understanding.

That's quite a mouthful

 

Having, I think, fully described the theory and mechanics of the proposed device itself, what aspect of the theory and operation is contrary to established science? Established when, by whom, using what empirical methodology and based on what experimental data.

I seem to be about the only one to have actually read through the rules of this "speculations" forum making some effort to adhere to the guidelines.

Are we to accept 17th century scientific "Law" based solely on the grandfather clause?

No we accept the  c.19th laws of thermodynamics based on 150 years of subsequent theoretical support for them and 150 years of subsequent experience.

But if you want to claim Newton's Laws of Motion should be thrown out, just because they date from the c.17th and are thus a bit old, be my guest.😁 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Tom Booth said:

That's quite a mouthful

You modified the quote without acknowledging that added emphasis. That’s frowned upon.

Our speculation rules say “Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof.” and we require testable predictions. The only way to quantify such predictions is with n=mainstream science.

 

1 hour ago, Tom Booth said:

Having, I think, fully described the theory and mechanics of the proposed device itself,

But you haven’t. I don’t see a single equation. You were asked about entropy and energy but there’s no analysis of these quantities.

 

1 hour ago, Tom Booth said:

what aspect of the theory and operation is contrary to established science? Established when, by whom, using what empirical methodology and based on what experimental data.

It’s your burden to show that it follows established science, and present any experimental data.

 

1 hour ago, Tom Booth said:

I seem to be about the only one to have actually read through the rules of this "speculations" forum making some effort to adhere to the guidelines.

Not enough effort has gone into providing evidence and testable predictions.

1 hour ago, Tom Booth said:

Are we to accept 17th century scientific "Law" based solely on the grandfather clause?

Solely? No. There’s plenty of evidence that Newton’s laws are valid, and that the laws of thermodynamics are valid (and the latter were established in the 19th century) (edit: xpost with exchemist)

[sethoflagos]

10 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Ok. How about conservation of energy? 

Focus on the 'bouncing ball' assembly in the middle of the apparatus.

If there are no losses from the system, the cycle can be described by the equation:

U + E_P + E_K = constant where U is the instantaneous internal energy of the gas and proportional to it's temperature; E_P is the instantaneous potential energy primarily due to the height of the ball in the tube, and E_K is the system bulk kinetic energy realised in the instantaneous velocity of the ball. 

At rest, everything is at ambient temperature, the ball is stationary with no kinetic energy, and at some intermediate position where its mass is supported by the air pressure beneath.

To start the process either the ball must be raised to the maximum height, minimum temperature position, or depressed to the minimum height maximum temperature position, and subsequently released. Both these actions require a significant input of work.

The system can in principle then continue to oscillate between these points cycling between high and low temperature (either side of ambient) moreorless indefinitely.

No physics is being broken so far.

The problems happen when you try adding or removing heat to/from the device. The stored energy used to start the machine runs down. There is no free lunch.

   

Edited February 10, 2023 by sethoflagos

[Tom Booth]

44 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

To start the process either the ball must be raised to the maximum height, minimum temperature position, or depressed to the minimum height maximum temperature position, and subsequently released. Both these actions require a significant input of work.

The system can in principle then continue to oscillate between these points cycling between high and low temperature (either side of ambient) moreorless indefinitely.

No physics is being broken so far.

Thank you for that, at least.

45 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

The problems happen when you try adding or removing heat to/from the device. The stored energy used to start the machine runs down.

OK, I can go along with that in principle, basically.

So are you suggesting that if we leave off the Stirling engines, this could be some kind of PM machine? Just that it could not put out any outside work, or what exactly?

At what point would the system break down by placing say, one Stirling engine on the cold side.

Ambient heat would then run the Stirling engine which would then drop it's "waste heat" into the device, which the Maxwell's Demon could then set about separating out.

 

[Ghideon]

2 hours ago, Tom Booth said:

What did I overlook?

Physics.

3 hours ago, Tom Booth said:

How do you know that?

Open a thread in mainstream section and ask; there are many members with adequate skills that can explain the deeper details if my basic skills about Newton, Lagrange and Noether is not enough.