Kender Solar Engine

[NuclearError]

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...

[lancelot21]

but you need a place to dump that heat that is colder than the atmosphere. without a refridgeration cycle you aren't going to get that.

 

From what I understand of the Kender process, the initial pressure of the gas (be it Helium or whatever, not really a concern for me as long as the gas is reasonably inert) rushes it from a section of the engine (let's call it section A) to another section (say section B) through a sort of turbine (generating electricity); the temperature of the gas inside this closed section B drops because the pressure of the gas drops (I'm not sure of what happens to the volume of the gas, maybe section B is also larger than section A?). This could be the refrigeration cycle you talk about.

 

This idea might just work if you have a set of valves which are controlled by a measuring system that can open them and close them.

 

I agree with CaptainPanic that the turbine must probably get locked at this stage.

 

Then the gas is pushed (by another turbine? Anyway this step is consuming electricity) to a section C (the "solar panel", which looks to me more like a heat exchanger). I guess this goes on until section B is empty or empty enough (whatever that is).

 

Then the second turbine must also get locked.

 

The gas in section C is still at a very low temperature at first, but is gradually heating up due to heat exchanges with the atmosphere. As it is heating up, the pressure of the gas is also increasing.

 

If section C is the same as section A, I guess the cycle is completed when the gas is somewhat back to its initial pressure and temperature and the first turbine is about to be unlocked. Or maybe there are more sections somewhere.

 

Does the process I just described really break the law of conservation of energy or of thermodynamics? I still don't see why - my concerns about such an engine would be:

 

- Does the second turbine consume more electricity than the first one produces ? Otherways there would be no electricity generated (but could it still be a cheap way to cool air outside of the engine?)

 

- How fast does the gas in section C heat back up (and how fast does its pressure go back up) ?

 

Note that their cycle time is supposed to be 0.22 seconds, so that is not much time.

 

I agree with Mr Skeptic 0.22 seconds is fast, the more time the cycle takes the less electricity is generated if any.

Edited December 2, 2009 by lancelot21

[SH3RL0CK]

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.

 

 

Really? I doubt it, this violates the law of conservation of energy. Couldn't I simply hook two of these together, back to back, and create energy out of nothing?

 

The decrease on one end of a heat exchanger is going to be equal to the increase on the other end. Where one side has the temperature decreasing, the other side must have the temperature increasing by an equal amount of heat energy.

 

You should look at the law of conservation of energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_conservation_of_energy

 

energy cannot be created nor destroyed. The only thing that can happen to energy in a closed system is that it can change form, for instance chemical energy can become thermal energy.

Edited December 2, 2009 by SH3RL0CK

[insane_alien]

Indeed, it takes more energy to take a temperature upwards than downwards (for the same differential)

 

this is the exact opposite of what i said

 

 

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...

 

yes, some calculations would be nice. but i'll keep it simple for you.

 

 

And to reiterate on this fictional 60K heat dump, it doesn't exist. absolutely no heat is dumped there as it is an internal part of the system.

 

if you wanted to have this thing work as a heat pump(which it isn't meant to be doing anyway) you would have a big beefy heat exchanger in there to draw heat out of what ever it is you want to cool. and you certainly don't put energy in the hot end.

 

also you'd take that generator out as its only going to mess up your heat pump.

 

what this thing is trying to do (and i shouldn't have to explain this at this stage in the thread) is not the function of a heat pump but a heat engine.

 

what happens is that you put energy in it causes circulation in the system(you certainly don't drive it round with a compressor as that defeats the entire purpose of the system) and there is a cold end that dumps heat to the enviroment(which means stuff outside the system, not inside)

 

so unless this thing is working in a 60K atmosphere, the temperature dump is NOT 60K its whatever temperature the room is. and i don't care how cold it gets internally and neither does thermodynamics.

[NuclearError]

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 merged

Indeed, I am saying the opposite of what you say.

[insane_alien]

those are pure stirling engines. and they have almost nothing to do with the proposed 'engine' in the website.

 

they all require heat transfer to an external dump. such as the atmosphere or the icecube. these are the heat dumps.

 

the cold bit in the 'kender engine' is not a heat dump as the gas needs to expand adiabatically to get so cold and then be compressed again with some cooling to perform as they are suggesting.

 

read this thread again, the failings of it are well documented and all this will work as is a very inefficient pneumatic transmission between the compressor and the alternator.

[sunshine]

The second phase of trials of this unit have been completed successfully.

They are now 3d modeling and reducing its size. It will then go to Underwriters laboratories for testing which should be complete by June 2010. Remember

in these discussions that all the information is not present and therefore conclusions are at best incomplete. I am following the developments closely and will post more detailed information as it becomes available over the next five months.

[Mr Skeptic]

You mean, they are working on improving their lies, right?

[neonsignal]

Kender Solar is amongst a group of shell companies that are connected to Edward Fitzpatrick / Sean Kelly. They are all associated with two business addresses: "36 Bvd Helvetique, Geneva" and "The Mill, Mill Lane, Hatton, Warwickshire". Allegedly a number of these companies have been involved in boiler room trading scams. I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

 

A partial list of the companies:

Antshake

Archon Arts

Azura Stem Cell Technologies

Bakerville

Blueshore Investment Partnership

Brainhunter Europe

Cake Magazine

Confida Corporate Finance

Eden 18

ELP Acquisition

European Launch Pad

Erexigo

Gulf Am

Kaldi TV

Kender Solar

Nanofactors

NetNetNet.tv

Nexis International

Radify or Die

Sequenti Productions

Skytale Biometrics

Stock Targets

Studio Pfund

Thaler Financial

Thaler Marketing

The Thaler Fund

The Marketing Fund

Ven-Gua Capital Markets

Viralstreet

 

A partial list of the 'broking' firms said to have been involved:

Artemis Financial

Capital Sys

CLT Solutions

Fosse Financial

HG Ventures

Kimura Financial

North Point HK

Pollia Ventures

Portway Capital

Unicorn Ventures

 

Curiously, the Thaler Fund are sponsoring a book about someone who was trying to live for a year without telling a lie.

Edited December 4, 2009 by neonsignal

[NuclearError]

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 ?

[neonsignal]

Since the original poster had invested money in the company and I imagine other people have too, a reply concerning the financial nature of Kender Solar and the possibility of it being a scam is relevant.

 

The scientific points have already been well covered by earlier posters. But by all means, continue the discussion, don't let me prevent you from trying to uncover the pseudo-science behind this device.

 

Your reply also consumes energy and favors global warming.

 

Actually, the power for the computer on which I am writing is sourced 100% from a wind farm at Challicum Hills (at a premium cost I should add) - my own small contribution towards reducing carbon emissions.

 

Edited December 4, 2009 by neonsignal

[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.

[insane_alien]

we are open for discussion, but you aren't giving anything back.

 

we only have the information on the website to use in evaluating the device and the information it is giving us is that it sucks the big one. and we have explained thuroughly why this is our conclusion.

 

if it does indeed work then it cannot be by the method shown on the site. if you know how it actually works then share the information and we will reevaluate our position. but as it stands based on the available information it doesn't work.

 

it also wouldn't be the first time a company has claimed to have a miracle device and turned out to be talking out of a certain non-oral orifice.

[Phi for All]

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 ?

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.

These posts seem to say, "If you're going to prove this is a scam by any other means than the ones I'm prepared to discuss, I'm going home". How is that scientific? Shouldn't science look at *all* the evidence? If the OP hadn't directly mentioned an investment then I could see neonsignal's list of shell companies as an attempt to Poison the Well, but it definitely seems to be relevant to the thread.

 

What's stopping anyone from continuing to discuss the feasibility of the physics and engineering of the Kender device?

[Mr Skeptic]

What's stopping anyone from continuing to discuss the feasibility of the physics and engineering of the Kender device?

 

That is has no feasibility?

[Phi for All]

That is has no feasibility?

When has that ever stopped a determined person?

[Mr Skeptic]

When has that ever stopped a determined person?

 

When they actually try to build it.

[Phi for All]

When they actually try to build it.

It hasn't stopped Kender. You must be thinking of an honest determined person.

[Mr Skeptic]

No, they couldn't have built their prototype as described. People would realize in less than a second that it doesn't work. Maybe if the managed to convince people that the energy coming in was actually going out, like if they connected an electric meter to it and said it was the energy being produced when it was actually the energy going in.

[Zolar V]

 

 

 

A heat pump that violates the second law of thermodynamics? Those don't exist. It's always funny when someone who has no clue about what they are talking about accuses knowledgeable people of the same.

 

agreed. i read this post and got a good chuckle out of it.

[lancelot21]

A heat pump that violates the second law of thermodynamics? Those don't exist.

 

As far as I know, a heat pump produces heat with little electricity, much less than it normally takes to heat a house.

 

Let's assume we heat one room of a hypothetical house with a heat pump.

 

We then get different heats between the room thus heated and another unheated room of the house, with much less electricity than by heating the room without a heat pump.

 

If we then use the heat difference to run a Stirling engine like the one in the first (German) video posted by NuclearError, a heat pump could produce electricity (after having consumed some first): the normal (unheated) room stands respectively for the room and then the ice cube of the video on one end and the warm room stands respectively for the hot cup and then the room of the other end (of the heat differential) in the video. I fail to see where it breaks any thermodynamic law or conservation of energy law.

 

It only comes down to whether the electricity consumed by the heat pump is smaller than the electricity produced by the Stirling engine. And maybe under high pressure and with high temperature differential and the right volumes it is the case.

 

And maybe Kender does this and found the right combination, or maybe another company will, but if such a possibility exists, I would think it is worth investigating.

[Mr Skeptic]

A heat pump both produces electricity and transports heat, so it is indeed a very good choice for heating your home. It does not produce any more heat than an electric heater though, rather it brings in heat from outside (an electric heater basically "wastes" all the electric energy by passing it through a resistor, producing "waste" heat).

 

Running a heat engine from a heat pump works about as well as running a wind farm from a fan, or a water turbine from a water pump, or an electric generator from an electric motor. If it seems like a good idea, you don't really understand what is going on. For running a heat engine from a heat pump, by allowing your hot end (the heat sink) to get hotter, you have to do more work to transport the same amount of heat. The cooler the heat sink of the heat pump is, the less work it takes to transport the heat to it. However, for the heat engine the opposite is true. The greater the heat difference here, the more work it can do. However, due to losses due to friction and such, you can't run a heat engine off a heat pump and gain energy.

[lancelot21]

Running a heat engine from a heat pump works about as well as running a wind farm from a fan, or a water turbine from a water pump, or an electric generator from an electric motor.

I think there is a difference between running a heat engine from a heat pump and running a wind farm from a fan:

 

The heat pump generates heat with a coefficient of performance of 3-4 (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pump), which means if I understand correctly that one joule of electrical energy can cause a heat pump to move 3 or 4 joules of heat from a cooler place to a warmer place.

 

But, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_engine, a heat engine (specifically a steam-cooled combined cycle gas turbine, whatever that is), has a 60% efficiency. This means if I understand correctly that one joule of heat can cause such a heat engine to produce 0.6 joules of electricity.

 

The whole cycle becomes 1 joule of electricity producing 3 to 4 joules of heat producing back 0.6x3 (=1.8) to 0.6x4 (=2.4) joules of electricity.

 

I believe this is exactly what Kender is trying to achieve.

[Mr Skeptic]

You understand incorrectly. The efficiency of a heat engine depends on the temperature differential, and the efficiency of the heat engine also depends on the temperature differential. A heat pump would be run with about 1000 C heat difference, a heat engine with maybe 10 C difference, to get reasonable efficiency. But you can't do both of these at the same time.

 

And a heat pump does not generate heat, not any more than an electric heater.

[neonsignal]

Just to illustrate the heat pump into heat engine idea, take the ideal case. For a given temperature differential [math]T_h - T_c{}[/math]:

 

The ideal energy advantage (coefficient of performance) of a heat pump

 

[math]COP = T_h/(T_h - T_c)[/math]

 

The ideal (Carnot) efficiency of a heat engine

 

[math]\eta = 1-T_c/T_h = (T_h-T_c)/T_h[/math]

 

So if you run a heat engine from the heat transferred by a heat pump, the overall result is

 

[math]COP . \eta = 1[/math]

 

In other words, even if the system has no losses and is ideal, there is no net gain of energy.

Edited December 5, 2009 by neonsignal