On atmospheric energy

[pranabjyoti]

I want to discuss the extraction of atmospheric heat for generation of electricity. YES, IT CAN BE DONE BY COMBINING EXISTING PROCESSES TODAY. HOW? The Sun may set, but the residue of its radiation remained as heat in the atmosphere and into the oceans of our planet. By extracting atmospheric heat and converting that into electricity, we can produce as much electricity as we need. A very effective way of extracting atmospheric heat is vacuum evaporation of water withe the help from a vacuum pump in a metallic container. During evaporation, the evaporated water collects its latent heat of vaporization from the leftover water and it becomes colder. But, heat from outisde atmosphere will enter into the colder water inside from warmer atmosphere. After sometime, an equilibrium can be reached when the amount of heat entering into the container from external atmosphere will be equal to the amount of latent heat necessary to evaporate the amount of water, that is evaporated. IN EXPERIMENTS OF OPEN-CYCLE OTEC, IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT TO GET A 1 KG/SEC FLOW OF VAPOR, JUST 3 KW IS ENOUGH TO MAINTAIN THE VACUUM PUMP. WHILE THE AMOUNT OF HEAT EMBEDDED IN THE 1 KG/SEC VAPOR FLOW IS 2.31 MW.
In the next phase, we just have to heat the vapor with solar reflector panels. By this process, we can get rid of supplying the latent heat of vaporization of water by the solar collectors, which is 2/3rd of the amount of heat embedded in the hot steam necessary to produce electricity.
There are also other sources of energy, which don't need scientific brakethroughs like fusion. But, what is necessary at present is sufficient funding to develop those ideas.

[pranabjyoti]

There are other processes too. The Sun may set, but the residue of its radiation remained as heat in the atmosphere and into the oceans of our planet. By extracting atmospheric heat and converting that into electricity, we can produce as much electricity as we need. A very effective way of extracting atmospheric heat is vacuum evaporation of water withe the help from a vacuum pump in a metallic container. During evaporation, the evaporated water collects its latent heat of vaporization from the leftover water and it becomes colder. But, heat from outisde atmosphere will enter into the colder water inside from warmer atmosphere. After sometime, an equilibrium can be reached when the amount of heat entering into the container from external atmosphere will be equal to the amount of latent heat necessary to evaporate the amount of water, that is evaporated. IN EXPERIMENTS OF OPEN-CYCLE OTEC, IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT TO GET A 1 KG/SEC FLOW OF VAPOR, JUST 3 KW IS ENOUGH TO MAINTAIN THE VACUUM PUMP. WHILE THE AMOUNT OF HEAT EMBEDDED IN THE 1 KG/SEC VAPOR FLOW IS 2.31 MW.
In the next phase, we just have to heat the vapor with solar reflector panels. By this process, we can get rid of supplying the latent heat of vaporization of water by the solar collectors, which is 2/3rd of the amount of heat embedded in the hot steam necessary to produce electricity.

[Ovi]

There are other processes too. The Sun may set, but the residue of its radiation remained as heat in the atmosphere and into the oceans of our planet. By extracting atmospheric heat and converting that into electricity, we can produce as much electricity as we need. A very effective way of extracting atmospheric heat is vacuum evaporation of water withe the help from a vacuum pump in a metallic container. During evaporation, the evaporated water collects its latent heat of vaporization from the leftover water and it becomes colder. But, heat from outisde atmosphere will enter into the colder water inside from warmer atmosphere. After sometime, an equilibrium can be reached when the amount of heat entering into the container from external atmosphere will be equal to the amount of latent heat necessary to evaporate the amount of water, that is evaporated. IN EXPERIMENTS OF OPEN-CYCLE OTEC, IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT TO GET A 1 KG/SEC FLOW OF VAPOR, JUST 3 KW IS ENOUGH TO MAINTAIN THE VACUUM PUMP. WHILE THE AMOUNT OF HEAT EMBEDDED IN THE 1 KG/SEC VAPOR FLOW IS 2.31 MW.
In the next phase, we just have to heat the vapor with solar reflector panels. By this process, we can get rid of supplying the latent heat of vaporization of water by the solar collectors, which is 2/3rd of the amount of heat embedded in the hot steam necessary to produce electricity.
If you look at the dependence of the heat of vaporization on it's temperature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_%28properties%29#Heat_capacity_and_heats_of_ vaporization_and_fusion) , the latent heat it's not much of a problem, considering the temperature in a steam turbine it's over 300 degrees C. In fact there are supercritical power plants in which there is no liquid-gas transition, thus no latent heat.

[pranabjyoti]

If you look at the dependence of the heat of vaporization on it's temperature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_%28properties%29#Heat_capacity_and_heats_of_ vaporization_and_fusion) , the latent heat it's not much of a problem, considering the temperature in a steam turbine it's over 300 degrees C. In fact there are supercritical power plants in which there is no liquid-gas transition, thus no latent heat.
The latent heat is not a problem at all. By the process that I have stated, the latent heat can be collected from atmosphere and can be used to generate electricity.
Whatever may be the process, the amount of heat embedded in vapor at a specific temp. always remains the same. Out goal is to extract atmospheric heat for electricity generation and the latent heat is a very useful tool, not burden in this process.

[Ovi]

The latent heat is not a problem at all. By the process that I have stated, the latent heat can be collected from atmosphere and can be used to generate electricity.
Whatever may be the process, the amount of heat embedded in vapor at a specific temp. always remains the same. Out goal is to extract atmospheric heat for electricity generation and the latent heat is a very useful tool, not burden in this process.
I still see little point in that. Any thermal engine will produce 'waste' heat, and its temperature will be above the atmospheric temperature, so why not use that? Anyway, I did a rough estimate of the energy that you can extract from the atmosphere at 20 degrees C and it turns out that for every 2 MJ of mechanical energy you get about 2.4 MJ of extra energy in your fluid, that means only 0.4 MJ of atmospheric energy. What you propose is a sort of heat pump, however you can't use a heat pump to increase the efficiency of a heat engine; if you could do that as much as you'd want to, then you could beat the carnot cycle and create a perpetuum mobile of the second kind.

You can use the energy of the atmosphere directly, without any sunshine. All you need is an engine that runs on the difference of temperature between night and day or winter and summer (although in this case you will need a huge thermal mass; the earth would do). But even so, at a 20 degrees C difference of temperature between night and day (although in the desert it would be much higher; but if you're in the desert solar panels are more convenient anyway), the maximum energy efficiency you can get is around 6%. However, at such low efficiencies, pumping might not even be worth it and you'd have to rely on natural convection for heat transfer. Even if you use some liquid for heat transfer from a thermal mass, it still means you need a lot of materials to make such a power plant for a very low output.

I also imagined once a simple system, say a Stirling engine, with one cylinder having a radiator in contact with the air, and the other a cylindrical thermal mass with insulated side walls, but a conductive opposite surface. The idea is that the thermal energy takes some time to pass through the thermal mass, so you basically get a sort of a heat wave that travels through it, delayed in such a way so that the highest midday temperature is reached some time close to midnight. The only moving parts would be the engine itself, everything else is stationary; it would work and it's a simple design, but again the power/mass (or price if you wish) of such a system is low compared even to a solar panel.

Again, it can be done, but the problem is that it ain't worth it. Using solar energy directly, or indirectly with wind turbines is most likely far more efficient (as kw/kg of material, which is the most important thing).

[eyedrop]

You are right, but to produce hydrogen, fusion and other complex energy technology isn't necessary. Electricity can be generated by extracting atmospheric heat very cheaply. And as fresh water and salt are two byproducts of the process, the electricity can be sold at a much cheaper rate and this cheap and environmentally clean electricity can be used to generate hydrogen as fuel. I'd like to see some good evidence for this. Extraordinary claims demands extraordinary evidence.

Is it possible with todays technology? Why haven't we started doing it now?

[pranabjyoti]

I still see little point in that. Any thermal engine will produce 'waste' heat, and its temperature will be above the atmospheric temperature, so why not use that? Anyway, I did a rough estimate of the energy that you can extract from the atmosphere at 20 degrees C and it turns out that for every 2 MJ of mechanical energy you get about 2.4 MJ of extra energy in your fluid, that means only 0.4 MJ of atmospheric energy. What you propose is a sort of heat pump, however you can't use a heat pump to increase the efficiency of a heat engine; if you could do that as much as you'd want to, then you could beat the carnot cycle and create a perpetuum mobile of the second kind.
SAME OLD IDIOTIC FALLACY. I myself is a student of physics and the way by which it has been shown in my book, with help from a imaginary experiment, there was no mention of phase change. I am stunned that how you even CALCULATED the energy balance without knowing the process properly. Kindly see the calculation that I have given based on the real experimental data.

You can use the energy of the atmosphere directly, without any sunshine. All you need is an engine that runs on the difference of temperature between night and day or winter and summer (although in this case you will need a huge thermal mass; the earth would do). But even so, at a 20 degrees C difference of temperature between night and day (although in the desert it would be much higher; but if you're in the desert solar panels are more convenient anyway), the maximum energy efficiency you can get is around 6%. However, at such low efficiencies, pumping might not even be worth it and you'd have to rely on natural convection for heat transfer. Even if you use some liquid for heat transfer from a thermal mass, it still means you need a lot of materials to make such a power plant for a very low output.
I want something practical and I know what it is. Vacuum evaporation of water will work quite well with me. By this process (kindly see my description), we can extract sufficient heat from atmosphere as latent heat of vaporization of water and that will work well nearly everywhere. I don't need any worthless suggestion.

I also imagined once a simple system, say a Stirling engine, with one cylinder having a radiator in contact with the air, and the other a cylindrical thermal mass with insulated side walls, but a conductive opposite surface. The idea is that the thermal energy takes some time to pass through the thermal mass, so you basically get a sort of a heat wave that travels through it, delayed in such a way so that the highest midday temperature is reached some time close to midnight. The only moving parts would be the engine itself, everything else is stationary; it would work and it's a simple design, but again the power/mass (or price if you wish) of such a system is low compared even to a solar panel.
It's your imagination, not mine.

Again, it can be done, but the problem is that it ain't worth it. Using solar energy directly, or indirectly with wind turbines is most likely far more efficient (as kw/kg of material, which is the most important thing).
That is as per your imagination. My technology can extract more heat from atmosphere much more than a wind turbine and the whole power plant would be as efficient and effective as a thermal power plant.

[Q]

pranabjyoti: Could you remain a civil tone? Thank you.

[pranabjyoti]

I'd like to see some good evidence for this. Extraordinary claims demands extraordinary evidence.
Actually this can be done by combining two processes that exist today. First, vacuum evaporation of water i.e. evaporation of water with help from a vacuum pump. By this process, the latent heat of vaporization of water is collected from external atmosphere. This has been well demonstrated in the experiments of open-cycle OTEC so far.
The next phase will be heating the vapor produced in this manner by arrays of solar reflectors. In this process, less than 1/3rd amount of solar arrays will be needed to produce the same amount of electricity.
Both the processes described above are tested well separately but so far haven't been tested together.

Is it possible with todays technology? Why haven't we started doing it now?
Who will do that? Use of fossil fuel is a much more lucrative option for the capitalists and at these days, they actually have lost their basic character of improving technologies and products. If any person or organization, is willing to test this idea, I am ready to help them with details. I hope you can understand that the feasibility of any idea can only be told after it has been tested properly. Not by questions like that "why it hasn't been done yet"; it is new and THAT'S WHY IT HASN'T BEEN DONE YET.

[Ovi]

SAME OLD IDIOTIC FALLACY. I myself is a student of physics and the way by which it has been shown in my book, with help from a imaginary experiment, there was no mention of phase change. I am stunned that how you even CALCULATED the energy balance without knowing the process properly. Kindly see the calculation that I have given based on the real experimental data.

What calculation? No phase change? Then why the hell do you need a vacuum pump for?


That is as per your imagination. My technology can extract more heat from atmosphere much more than a wind turbine and the whole power plant would be as efficient and effective as a thermal power plant.
Ok it is if that makes you feel better. :lol:

[pranabjyoti]

Can anybody find the fallacy in the semi-imaginary experiment mentioned below?
In a real experiment of Open-Cycle OTEC by Dr. L.A.Vega, it is found that with a temp. diff. of 20ºC (25ºC and 5ºC) and with a steam flow rate of 26 kg/sec, the gross output is 1838 kW. The energy spent in diff. stages are 334 kW for cold water pumping from a depth of 1000 m, 284 kW for hot water pumping, 80 kW for the compressors i.e. vacuum pumps and 14 kW for pumping desalinated water to the shore. In total, the net output is 1126 kW.
Now, lets keep the whole system intact but just replace the cold water pumping with a heat pump of c.o.p of 3 and an input value of 364 kW and the whole system will deliver its heat to raise the temp. of the vapor. Then the output would be 1092 kW of heat and that means 260 kcal of heat and that will raise the temp. of the 26 kg vapor by 10ºC. then this hot vapor will be used to produce electricity and if a 20ºC temp. diff. can produce 1838 kW of electricity then 10ºC temp. diff. can produce 919 kW of electricity I suppose as per Carnots theorem on efficiency of heat engines without going into further complicated details. Then by subtracting all other energy expenditures, we can get a net output of 177 kW of electricity and that is done without using the released cold gas of the heat pump at the condenser for your satisfaction. I am very much sure that if the heat pump will be further used to cool the condenser at the same time, and then we can get at least a temp. diff. of 30ºC and the gross output would be 2757 kW and the net output of 2015 kW of electricity, certainly an improvement over 1126 kW of net output. The more the input in the heat pump, the more will be the net output.
This imaginary experiment clearly shows that even without violating laws of thermodynamics, machines and systems can be built that could extract such heat from atmosphere and convert it into electricity with a positive energy balance. Skeptics please try to clear your point clearly; don’t just say this machine violates laws of physics.
Can anybody tell me what is the flaw in the above-mentioned experiment without just by saying that this violates laws of thermodynamics? I want him/her to properly point out the flaw (and very much sanguine that he/she couldn’t).
N.B; don’t disturb me by asking for T-S, P-V diagram etc. or entropy calculation. If you wish, why don’t you do that by yourself? I know, when processes are real, their combination is also real and doesn’t violate any law of thermodynamics.

[Ovi]

Weird place you found to discuss thermodynamic efficiency. Ah well. By the way, relax, nobody here made a fortune out of oil so there's no reason to think we're ignoring something because we want to. It just has to be realistic.

Can anybody find the fallacy in the semi-imaginary experiment mentioned below?
In a real experiment of Open-Cycle OTEC by Dr. L.A.Vega, it is found that with a temp. diff. of 20ºC (25ºC and 5ºC) and with a steam flow rate of 26 kg/sec, the gross output is 1838 kW. The energy spent in diff. stages are 334 kW for cold water pumping from a depth of 1000 m, 284 kW for hot water pumping, 80 kW for the compressors i.e. vacuum pumps and 14 kW for pumping desalinated water to the shore. In total, the net output is 1126 kW.

Ok I got it, you use a warm reservoir, which is the sea, and a cold one, the earth at a depth of 1000 m. Seems way to efficient for a 20ºC temp. diff. but for now I'll take it as granted.


Now, lets keep the whole system intact but just replace the cold water pumping with a heat pump of c.o.p of 3 and an input value of 364 kW and the whole system will deliver its heat to raise the temp. of the vapor. Then the output would be 1092 kW of heat and that means 260 kcal of heat and that will raise the temp. of the 26 kg vapor by 10ºC. then this hot vapor will be used to produce electricity and if a 20ºC temp. diff. can produce 1838 kW of electricity then 10ºC temp. diff. can produce 919 kW of electricity I suppose as per Carnots theorem on efficiency of heat engines without going into further complicated details. Then by subtracting all other energy expenditures, we can get a net output of 177 kW of electricity and that is done without using the released cold gas of the heat pump at the condenser for your satisfaction. I am very much sure that if the heat pump will be further used to cool the condenser at the same time, and then we can get at least a temp. diff. of 30ºC and the gross output would be 2757 kW and the net output of 2015 kW of electricity, certainly an improvement over 1126 kW of net output. The more the input in the heat pump, the more will be the net output.
This imaginary experiment clearly shows that even without violating laws of thermodynamics, machines and systems can be built that could extract such heat from atmosphere and convert it into electricity with a positive energy balance. Skeptics please try to clear your point clearly; don’t just say this machine violates laws of physics.
Can anybody tell me what is the flaw in the above-mentioned experiment without just by saying that this violates laws of thermodynamics? I want him/her to properly point out the flaw (and very much sanguine that he/she couldn’t).
N.B; don’t disturb me by asking for T-S, P-V diagram etc. or entropy calculation. If you wish, why don’t you do that by yourself? I know, when processes are real, their combination is also real and doesn’t violate any law of thermodynamics.
First of all if you're trying to prove something you're the one supposed to bring evidence that in works, not me.

Now about the design; I don't get it. You replaced the cold water pump with a heat pump? Before you did that you had two thermal reservoirs, the sea and the ground. Now what? Where's the cold reservoir? Could you elaborate a bit please?

[pranabjyoti]

Weird place you found to discuss thermodynamic efficiency. Ah well. By the way, relax, nobody here made a fortune out of oil so there's no reason to think we're ignoring something because we want to. It just has to be realistic.
Now about the design; I don't get it. You replaced the cold water pump with a heat pump? Before you did that you had two thermal reservoirs, the sea and the ground. Now what? Where's the cold reservoir? Could you elaborate a bit please?
I just want to show that this system can function without ANY COLD RESERVOIR. The purpose of your said "cold reservoir" is to make necessary temp diff. to generate electricity. I have just showed that the heat pump can do that well with less energy input. And this is an example how energy can be generated with the help from a heat pump and vacuum evaporation of water together without any kind of permanent "hot source and cold reservoir".
Actually the data I have given here is quiet conservative. I have taken that a heat pump can generate a temp. diff. of just 10 ºC; while in reality they can produce a temp. diff of 50ºC or more and that means five times the output that I have guessed.

[Ovi]

I just want to show that this system can function without ANY COLD RESERVOIR. The purpose of your said "cold reservoir" is to make necessary temp diff. to generate electricity. I have just showed that the heat pump can do that well with less energy input. And this is an example how energy can be generated with the help from a heat pump and vacuum evaporation of water together without any kind of permanent "hot source and cold reservoir".
Actually the data I have given here is quiet conservative. I have taken that a heat pump can generate a temp. diff. of just 10 ºC; while in reality they can produce a temp. diff of 50ºC or more and that means five times the output that I have guessed.
Sorry to tell you this chum but a cyclic monothermal heat engine is impossible according with the current laws of thermodynamics. Otherwise you could just devise such an engine and power a car out of thin air. But it ain't cyclic you say! Of course it is. If your device has a cycle then it's cyclic. Otherwise it couldn't produce mechanical work for an indefinite time. Plus if you would build such a car, the mechanical energy generated would eventually transform into thermal energy and heat the air around it. Thus it doesn't even use the thermal energy of the air to power it up since the air temperature doesn't change at all! That's a good thing, because you can't create or destroy energy, since the total energy of an isolated system is constant. But you still can't build a cyclic monothermal heat engine!

It's what physicists call a perpetual motion machine of the second kind and according to the laws of physics it's impossible to build one.

How about your device? I'm not going to prove that it can't work using the data you have given me because it would be a waste of time. Take it this way: according to the known laws of physics what you say it's impossible. Thus, you can't build a system that works by the principles of known physics and it defies them at the same time. If you did that then you did something wrong. If you want to design such a device you would need to use some completely different laws of physics than the ones we know today, which allow such a thing to be built and at the same time they are correct, otherwise they are not of much use.

[pranabjyoti]

Sorry to tell you this chum but a reversible monothermal heat engine is impossible according with the current laws of thermodynamics. Otherwise you could just devise such an engine and power a car out of thin air. But it ain't reversible you say! Of course it is. If your device has a cycle then it's reversible. Otherwise it couldn't produce mechanical work for an indefinite time. Plus if you would build such a car, the mechanical energy generated would eventually transform into thermal energy and heat the air around it. Thus it doesn't even use the thermal energy of the air to power it up since the air temperature doesn't change at all! That's a good thing, because you can't create or destroy energy, since the total energy of an isolated system is constant. But you still can't build a monothermal heat engine!
Where in the CURRENT LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS it has been written that energy from atmosphere can not extracted and converted into electricity successfully. The Second Law of thermodynamics just states that entropy of the universe is always increasing.

It's what physicists call a perpetual motion machine of the second kind and according to the laws of physics it's impossible to build one.
A perpetual motion of 2nd kind is that kind of machine that will decrease the entropy of the universe.

How about your device? I'm not going to prove that it can't work using the data you have given me because it would be a waste of time.
If you think it violates 2nd law of thermodynamics, then just go and try to calculate the entropy before and after the whole process. IT IS CERTAINLY A WASTE OF TIME FOR YOU BECAUSE AT THE END YOU WILL FIND THAT THE ENTROPY OF THE UNIVERSE WILL INCREASE, NOT DECREASE. Don't ask me for that because I don't have time for that I AM PRETTY MUCH SANGUINE ABOUT THAT BECAUSE IT IS A COMBINATION OF REAL PROCESSES.

Take it this way: according to the known laws of physics what you say it's impossible.
Please stop imposing your thought on others.

Thus, you can't build a system that works by the principles of known physics and it defies them at the same time. If you did that then you did something wrong. If you want to design such a device you would need to use some completely different laws of physics than the ones we know today, which allow such a thing to be built and at the same time they are correct, otherwise they are not of much use.
I myself am a student of physics and as per my knowledge it doesn't violate any law of physics, SPECIALLY 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. Actually, it is a idiotic conclusion that some physicist have drawn from 2nd law of thermodynamics which experimental data wouldn't support at all.

[Ovi]

Where in the CURRENT LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS it has been written that energy from atmosphere can not extracted and converted into electricity successfully. The Second Law of thermodynamics just states that entropy of the universe is always increasing.

A perpetual motion of 2nd kind is that kind of machine that will decrease the entropy of the universe.

You're having a hard time understanding the entropy thing. Take it this way: if you could design a cyclic monothermal heat engine then you could power it using a cold thermal mass and use the mechanical work to heat a warmer thermal mass. In effect, you've just transfered thermal energy from a cold body to a warmer one!


If you think it violates 2nd law of thermodynamics, then just go and try to calculate the entropy before and after the whole process. IT IS CERTAINLY A WASTE OF TIME FOR YOU BECAUSE AT THE END YOU WILL FIND THAT THE ENTROPY OF THE UNIVERSE WILL INCREASE, NOT DECREASE. Don't ask me for that because I don't have time for that I AM PRETTY MUCH SANGUINE ABOUT THAT BECAUSE IT IS A COMBINATION OF REAL PROCESSES.

That's the problem with your device! It's works under the laws of known physics yet it defies them at the same time!
Calculate the entropy? It definitely decreased as you decreased the temp of the air in some places and increased it in others.
Here's an informal description of the second law of thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Informal_descriptions ) from wikipedia
The second law can be stated in various succinct ways, including:


It is impossible to produce work in the surroundings using a cyclic process connected to a single heat reservoir (Kelvin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thomson,_1st_Baron_Kelvin), 1851).
It is impossible to carry out a cyclic process using an engine connected to two heat reservoirs that will have as its only effect the transfer of a quantity of heat from the low-temperature reservoir to the high-temperature reservoir (Clausius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Clausius), 1854).



Please stop imposing your thought on others.

If you want to believe in fairy tales and capitalists that 'manipulate' the laws of thermodynamics so that you don't get 'free' energy, then go ahead. There are many who believe a man in the sky is watching over us, I won't blame you :lol:


I myself am a student of physics and as per my knowledge it doesn't violate any law of physics, SPECIALLY 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. Actually, it is a idiotic conclusion that some physicist have drawn from 2nd law of thermodynamics which experimental data wouldn't support at all.
What do you know, I also study physics at the University of Bucharest. Although that doesn't make enough of an argument to prove I (or you) ain't talking crap.

Just because you don't want to believe basic physics from the 19'th century that doesn't mean you have to insult the others.

[pranabjyoti]

You're having a hard time understanding the entropy thing. Take it this way: if you could design a reversible monothermal heat engine then you could power it using a cold thermal mass and use the mechanical work to heat a warmer thermal mass. In effect, you've just transfered thermal energy from a cold body to a warmer one!

That's the problem with your device! It's works under the laws of known physics yet it defies them at the same time!
Calculate the entropy? It definitely decreased as you decreased the temp of the air in some places and increased it in others.
From your writings, it seems that as per your knowledge of 2nd law of thermodynamics, extracting heat from atmosphere is IMPOSSIBLE. But, perhaps it is my inability to make you understand that a HEAT PUMP can successfully make two diff. temp points that can be successfully and commercially used to generate electricity.

Here's an informal description of the second law of thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Informal_descriptions ) from wikipedia
The second law can be stated in various succinct ways, including:


It is impossible to produce work in the surroundings using a cyclic process connected to a single heat reservoir (Kelvin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thomson,_1st_Baron_Kelvin), 1851).
It is impossible to carry out a cyclic process using an engine connected to two heat reservoirs that will have as its only effect the transfer of a quantity of heat from the low-temperature reservoir to the high-temperature reservoir (Clausius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Clausius), 1854).

Really, then how can this machine be explained. For a long time, perpetual motion devices and projects have fooled many. As a student of physics, I can say that a perpetual motion device is something that violates the first law of thermodynamics. It creates energy out of nothing, but energy can’t be created, not destroyed. Instead of that, my project extracts energy from atmosphere and turns that into electricity. So, at least it has a source of energy to produce electricity. Now, after that comes another objection. In thermodynamics, after the first law exists the second law. I don’t want to go into detail of that law, but some misinterpret that law as the energy embedded in atmosphere and water can’t be extracted successfully. But, that’s not the fact. Long ago (nearly 500 B.C), Chinese people invented a toy that extracts heat energy from the atmosphere and turns that into motion. Though I called it a toy, because it was never used for production purpose. But according to the terminologies of physics, it is an engine, because it converts one type of energy (heat) into other type of energy (motion). In fact, it is a thermodynamic engine. You will find the description of that toy on books on popular science. So, at least there is one example that atmospheric energy can be extracted and turn into motion energy. I think it is enough to prove the basic scientific feasibility of my work. In spite of that, if somebody still complaining that my project violates second law of thermodynamics. Then I am requesting him to calculate the entropy of my project. I myself have calculated that and if someone does so, he too will come to the conclusion that in this case, entropy isn’t decreasing but increasing.

[pranabjyoti]

It is impossible to carry out a cyclic process using an engine connected to two heat reservoirs that will have as its only effect the transfer of a quantity of heat from the low-temperature reservoir to the high-temperature reservoir (Clausius, 1854)
Well, can you explain the functioning of the toy as per Clausius? I hope you know about the great debate between Neils Bohr and Einstein regarding quantum mechanics. Einstein regularly put imaginary experiments before Bohr to explain it on the basis of quantum mechanics and Bohr answered that all. How it will be if Bohr just ignored Einstein by saying "I don't want to waste my time, I know quantum mechanics and as per quantum mechanics, it is impossible". Those who claim themselves men of science have to take challenge every possible time when they are challenged and if the challenged is based on some real data, it will be a MUST for that time. Otherwise, they don't have the right to spell even the word "science".
Take time and if possible, consult your professors from your university. But, to prove your point by finding the flaw in the semi-imaginary experiment, not by just saying "it violates 2nd law of thermodynamics". If the experiment really violates 2nd law of thermodynamics, then it should have a flaw in it and that should be pointed.

[Ovi]

As a student of physics, I can say that a perpetual motion device is something that violates the first law of thermodynamics.
There are 3 types of perpetual motion machines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion_machine):

1. A perpetual motion machine of the first kind produces energy from nothing, giving the user unlimited 'free' energy. It thus violates the law of conservation of energy.
2. A perpetual motion machine of the second kind is a machine which spontaneously converts thermal energy into mechanical work. When the thermal energy is equivalent to the work done, this does not violate the law of conservation of energy. However it does violate the more subtle second law of thermodynamics (see also entropy). Such a machine is different from real heat engines (such as car engines), which always involve a transfer of heat from a hotter reservoir to a colder one, the latter being warmed up in the process. The signature of a perpetual motion machine of the second kind is that there is only one heat reservoir involved, which is being spontaneously cooled without involving a transfer of heat to a cooler reservoir. This conversion of heat into useful work, without any side effect, is impossible, as stated by the second law of thermodynamics. In contrast, a hot reservoir inside an internal combustion engine is created by a spark igniting fumes which contain stores of chemical energy. The temperature of the fumes increases above that of the surroundings. This is not a perpetual motion machine since the increase in temperature is a result of the release of a finite available amount of chemical energy - which is always much less than the total heat energy and mass-energy contained within the system. As explained by statistical mechanics, there are far more states in which heat distribution is close to thermodynamic equilibrium than states in which heat is concentrated in small regions, so temperatures will tend to even out over time, reducing the amount of free energy available for conversion to mechanical energy.
3. A more obscure category is a perpetual motion machine of the third kind, usually (but not always)[2] defined as one that completely eliminates friction and other dissipative forces, to maintain motion forever (due to its mass inertia). Third in this case refers solely to the position in the above classification scheme, not the third law of thermodynamics. Although it is impossible to make such a machine,[3][4] as dissipation can never be 100% eliminated in a mechanical system, it is nevertheless possible to get very close to this ideal (see examples in the Low Friction section). Even if such a machine could be built, it would not serve as a source of energy but merely a perpetual energy storage device. A frictionless flywheel, for example, would eventually slow down and stop if its kinetic energy were tapped for useful work, and we would get no more energy out than the amount that was initially put in to spin up the flywheel.


Long ago (nearly 500 B.C), Chinese people invented a toy that extracts heat energy from the atmosphere and turns that into motion.

There is no such thing as a chinesse perpetual motion machine! Otherwise why isn't everyone building one and why is the second law of thermodynamics still applicable?

It is impossible to carry out a cyclic process using an engine connected to two heat reservoirs that will have as its only effect the transfer of a quantity of heat from the low-temperature reservoir to the high-temperature reservoir (Clausius, 1854)
Well, can you explain the functioning of the toy as per Clausius? I hope you know about the great debate between Neils Bohr and Einstein regarding quantum mechanics. Einstein regularly put imaginary experiments before Bohr to explain it on the basis of quantum mechanics and Bohr answered that all. How it will be if Bohr just ignored Einstein by saying "I don't want to waste my time, I know quantum mechanics and as per quantum mechanics, it is impossible". Those who claim themselves men of science have to take challenge every possible time when they are challenged and if the challenged is based on some real data, it will be a MUST for that time. Otherwise, they don't have the right to spell even the word "science".
Take time and if possible, consult your professors from your university. But, to prove your point by finding the flaw in the semi-imaginary experiment, not by just saying "it violates 2nd law of thermodynamics". If the experiment really violates 2nd law of thermodynamics, then it should have a flaw in it and that should be pointed.
Bohr and Einstein were not debating on the second law of thermodynamics, but on quantum mechanics! Back then q.m. was at its inception and many things had to be explained and theories to be made. But of course nobody tried to explain the things observed by a new theory that would also work under the old ones. The old theory of determinacy had to be abandoned and our view on physics completely changed!

What you're trying to do is use the current laws of physics and build a device that works under them but at the same time violates them! This is not a physical impossibility, but a mathematical one!

If you knew what entropy is then it would be obvious that it decreases! So if you want to say 'the hell with the seconds law of thermodynamics', you must also say 'the hell with the only increasing entropy'!

Why should I waste my time calculating something if I know for sure that there are mathematical fallacies in the design? You do it and show the results! You wanna bet it ain't gonna work?

Remember one thing in physics, you can't improve everything as much as you'd want: you can't create an engine more efficient than a reversible engine, you can't reduce the effects of observing a particle as much as you'd want, thus the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and so on.

[Ovi]

From your writings, it seems that as per your knowledge of 2nd law of thermodynamics, extracting heat from atmosphere is IMPOSSIBLE.

Not extracting heat from the atmosphere, but work! That's a completely different thing and yes you can't transform the thermal energy of the atmosphere into work unless of course you find a colder medium to transfer part of the energy to.


But, perhaps it is my inability to make you understand that a HEAT PUMP can successfully make two diff. temp points that can be successfully and commercially used to generate electricity.

Nope, you can't. That's the whole idea. If you have an engine with an efficiency of 33%, than there's no way you can build a heat pump with a coefficient of performance greater than 3. In the end your heat pump uses more power to keep the temperature difference than your engine can generate.

[pranabjyoti]

Not extracting heat from the atmosphere, but work! That's a completely different thing and yes you can't transform the thermal energy of the atmosphere into work unless of course you find a colder medium to transfer part of the energy to.
Kindly just explain the working principle of the toy that I have described in previous threads, IF YOU HAVE TIME. This toy clearly shows that energy can be extracted from atmosphere and can be turned into work WITHOUT ANY EXTERNAL HELP. The way you are explaining 2nd law of thermodynamics that will lead to the conclusion that the toy CAN NOT EXIST IN REALITY. BUT, IT EXISTS IN REALITY. And I hope you know that science is based on reality, if something, as per your scientific knowledge can not exist, but you have seen such things to exist is reality, then you have to go back again to theories for revision.

[Ovi]

Kindly just explain the working principle of the toy that I have described in previous threads, IF YOU HAVE TIME. This toy clearly shows that energy can be extracted from atmosphere and can be turned into work WITHOUT ANY EXTERNAL HELP. The way you are explaining 2nd law of thermodynamics that will lead to the conclusion that the toy CAN NOT EXIST IN REALITY. BUT, IT EXISTS IN REALITY. And I hope you know that science is based on reality, if something, as per your scientific knowledge can not exist, but you have seen such things to exist is reality, then you have to go back again to theories for revision.
Can you give me a link? It's a complete waste of time but what the hell...It would be much easier for you to learn physics if you'd just read some physics books!

[pranabjyoti]

Can you give me a link? It's a complete waste of time but what the hell...It would be much easier for you to learn physics if you'd just read some physics books!
http://www-toys.science.unitn.it/toys/en-html/en-t-papero.html
You can get that yourself too by googling "drinking duck toy".
I don't want to learn the same the same things that I have already read. Better, pointing to the flaw of my semi-imaginary experiment.

[Q]

I've splitted the posts on atmospheric energy towards this thread as it was somewhat offtopic to the other discussions.

[Ovi]

http://www-toys.science.unitn.it/toys/en-html/en-t-papero.html
You can get that yourself too by googling "drinking duck toy".
I don't want to learn the same the same things that I have already read. Better, pointing to the flaw of my semi-imaginary experiment.
There's an article on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drinking_bird.jpg) which describes how it works pretty well. You still work with 2 different temperatures, the air temperature or the warm reservoir and the head of the thing cooled by the evaporating water or the cold reservoir.

Obviously such a device can't work as a simple engine that extracts energy from the atmosphere because if you were to evaporate the water in a closed room the humidity would reach 100% and the engine would stop working, thus the vapor must leave the system.

The unusual part of the design is that you don't care about what happens with the water vapor, but in the end it will just condense as clouds in the upper troposphere, thus transferring thermal energy from the the lower troposphere to the upper one.

So on a larger view your engine works by using 2 thermal reservoirs: a warm one, the lower troposphere and a cold one, the upper troposphere. It doesn't simply extract energy from the air, but it heats a cool reservoir in the process, just like any other cyclic engine.

There are other proposals like this, such as using the temperature gradient in the ocean to produce useful work for instance, which would be far more easy to accomplish.

[pranabjyoti]

There's an article on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drinking_bird.jpg) which describes how it works pretty well. You still work with 2 different temperatures, the air temperature or the warm reservoir and the head of the thing cooled by the evaporating water or the cold reservoir.
Well, the low temp. doesn't automatically exist in the beginning. It has been produced by applying water. So far I know that only heat pumps can create a temp. diff and this toy creates its own temp diff., it can certainly be considered as a heat pump. That means in total this toy is a combination of a heat pump and engine that together can extract heat from atmosphere and convert that into work

Obviously such a device can't work as a simple engine that extracts energy from the atmosphere because if you were to evaporate the water in a closed room the humidity would reach 100% and the engine would stop working, thus the vapor must leave the system.
Nothing can work in a closed system as you say. A engine, that need fuel to run have to supplied with fuel and oxygen to run. If somehow, the vapor produced can be used for another function, that engine can certainly run for much longer time. Moreover, this is just an example that such things can be made. It is a very ancient one and new improved systems, as per my suggestion can be made which can run much more longer.

The unusual part of the design is that you don't care about what happens with the water vapor, but in the end it will just condense as clouds in the upper troposphere, thus transferring thermal energy from the the lower troposphere to the upper one.
I know that and I also know that this is the reason behind cyclones and other big sea storms. This is actually a very good example of heat turning into movement in the natural course of atmosphere. If nature can do that, why don't we?

So on a larger view your engine works by using 2 thermal reservoirs: a warm one, the lower troposphere and a cold one, the upper troposphere. It doesn't simply extract energy from the air, but it heats a cool reservoir in the process, just like any other cyclic engine.
If upper troposphere is the colder source in case of this toy on a larger scale, then it is the same in case of my technology too. How? Pretty simple. In my example, the air that will be used to condense the vapor in the Condenser, will become warmer and will rise higher at the end will reach troposphere. There it will be cooled by radiating its heat and will again come down near to the earth to be heated again.

There are other proposals like this, such as using the temperature gradient in the ocean to produce useful work for instance, which would be far more easy to accomplish.
Open and closed cycle OTEC, I know that very well. But for that, you need to be near sea and OTEC isn't possible anywhere in the world except some few points. My technological can be implemented on much more no. of points in the world.

[Ovi]

Well, the low temp. doesn't automatically exist in the beginning. It has been produced by applying water. So far I know that only heat pumps can create a temp. diff and this toy creates its own temp diff., it can certainly be considered as a heat pump. That means in total this toy is a combination of a heat pump and engine that together can extract heat from atmosphere and convert that into work

A heat pump is a device that can transfer thermal energy from a cold mass to a warmer one. The water cycle is not a heat pump since it transports energy from a warm medium to a cold one, like you'd expect. It's similar to a heat pipe.


Nothing can work in a closed system as you say. A engine, that need fuel to run have to supplied with fuel and oxygen to run. If somehow, the vapor produced can be used for another function, that engine can certainly run for much longer time. Moreover, this is just an example that such things can be made. It is a very ancient one and new improved systems, as per my suggestion can be made which can run much more longer.

A perpetual motion machine of the second kind must be able to use a single thermal mass as its single reservoir, one of energy. This device evaporates water.


I know that and I also know that this is the reason behind cyclones and other big sea storms. This is actually a very good example of heat turning into movement in the natural course of atmosphere. If nature can do that, why don't we?

If upper troposphere is the colder source in case of this toy on a larger scale, then it is the same in case of my technology too. How? Pretty simple. In my example, the air that will be used to condense the vapor in the Condenser, will become warmer and will rise higher at the end will reach troposphere. There it will be cooled by radiating its heat and will again come down near to the earth to be heated again.

Open and closed cycle OTEC, I know that very well. But for that, you need to be near sea and OTEC isn't possible anywhere in the world except some few points. My technological can be implemented on much more no. of points in the world.
If you know all this than way are you debating on how you can extract energy from a single thermal mass and on how the second law of thermodynamics doesn't stop you from doing it? I don't know much about your design that uses a heat pump, but be sure that if you don't release the water vapor into the atmosphere (since you don't use any cold mass) it's not going to work.

Let's say you do release the vapor. So what? In the end all your energy comes from the sun anyway. What's important is to find the best form of sun derived energy there is, be it wind, direct solar energy or the temperature gradient in the atmosphere or the ocean. If it's much easier to build a solar power plant than a plant that uses the temperature gradient of the atmosphere, then let's build the better one!

[pranabjyoti]

A heat pump is a device that can transfer thermal energy from a cold mass to a warmer one. The water cycle is not a heat pump since it transports energy from a warm medium to a cold one, like you'd expect. It's similar to a heat pipe.
The heat is transferred from the liquid inside the tube, which becomes colder than atmosphere and heat is taken by water to form vapor that mixes into atmosphere. AND YOU ARE SAYING THAT HEAT HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM THE HOT TO THE COLD.

A perpetual motion machine of the second kind must be able to use a single thermal mass as its single reservoir, one of energy. This device evaporates water.
Well, I just want to prove that such machines doesn't contradict 2nd law of thermodynamics. But, this toy is a prove that a machine can makes its own temp diff necessary for doing work.

If you know all this than way are you debating on how you can extract energy from a single thermal mass and on how the second law of thermodynamics doesn't stop you from doing it? I don't know much about your design that uses a heat pump, but be sure that if you don't release the water vapor into the atmosphere (since you don't use any cold mass) it's not going to work.
Well, the ultimate thing is to release the heat in the troposphere (as per you), therefore whether we use the vapor or release it, doesn't matter. The process, that have to used to condense the vapor will have to release its heat anyhow and that at the end will end in troposphere. Vapor has a very high concentration of heat, therefore losing it is idiotic in my opinion.

Let's say you do release the vapor. So what? In the end all your energy comes from the sun anyway. What's important is to find the best form of sun derived energy there is, be it wind, direct solar energy or the temperature gradient in the atmosphere or the ocean. If it's much easier to build a solar power plant than a plant that uses the temperature gradient of the atmosphere, then let's build the better one!
I know well that the Sun is the ultimate source of all energy. But, the energy that is stored in our atmosphere and oceans can be the most reliable source in this regard. Without the Sun, both solar thermal and photovoltaic panels are useless. And atmosphere and oceans are huge, therefore we can extract nearly about infinite amount of energy from them.

[Ovi]

The heat is transferred from the liquid inside the tube, which becomes colder than atmosphere and heat is taken by water to form vapor that mixes into atmosphere. AND YOU ARE SAYING THAT HEAT HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM THE HOT TO THE COLD.

It is! From the warm device to the cold water!
Are you still arguing that you designed a heat pump? Again, a heat pump heats a hot mass and cools a cold one further. The cycle of this device stops in the upper troposphere and all it does is to transfer heat from the warm part of it to the cold one!!!


Well, I just want to prove that such machines doesn't contradict 2nd law of thermodynamics. But, this toy is a prove that a machine can makes its own temp diff necessary for doing work.

It doesn't! It uses the temperature difference of the atmosphere!


Well, the ultimate thing is to release the heat in the troposphere (as per you), therefore whether we use the vapor or release it, doesn't matter. The process, that have to used to condense the vapor will have to release its heat anyhow and that at the end will end in troposphere. Vapor has a very high concentration of heat, therefore losing it is idiotic in my opinion.

I can't understand much of what you're saying but not losing the vapor is idiotic since it won't work at all!


I know well that the Sun is the ultimate source of all energy. But, the energy that is stored in our atmosphere and oceans can be the most reliable source in this regard. Without the Sun, both solar thermal and photovoltaic panels are useless. And atmosphere and oceans are huge, therefore we can extract nearly about infinite amount of energy from them.
You can extract way more using solar panels! The sun produces billions of times more energy than we could possibly use, but that doesn't mean we can just plug our computers in the sun!
Arguing about which form of solar energy is better is pointless. Do the math, see how totally inefficient it would be to extract energy from the temperature gradient of the atmosphere and then engage in your holly war about it.

[pranabjyoti]

It is! From the warm device to the cold water!
Are you still arguing that you designed a heat pump? Again, a heat pump heats a hot mass and cools a cold one further. The cycle of this device stops in the upper troposphere and all it does is to transfer heat from the warm part of it to the cold one!!!
Even the cycle of a heat pump at the end will end up in troposphere. Here in this case, both the liquid inside the tube and water are initially at the same temp of atmospheric level. The water evaporates and sucks heat in this process from the liquid. If it is not a heat pump, then evaporative coolers too aren't heat pump.

It doesn't! It uses the temperature difference of the atmosphere!
This is quite an extraordinary case where the cold reservoir isn't in touch with it. The way cold troposphere is attached to it, is likely to be attached to everything in the world.

I can't understand much of what you're saying but not losing the vapor is idiotic since it won't work at all!
Vapor is vapor, if vapor produced by other means can work, then why not that.

You can extract way more using solar panels! The sun produces billions of times more energy than we could possibly use, but that doesn't mean we can just plug our computers in the sun!
Arguing about which form of solar energy is better is pointless. Do the math, see how totally inefficient it would be to extract energy from the temperature gradient of the atmosphere and then engage in your holly war about it.
Well, if you want to know how efficient extracting atmospheric heat is, then just go back to my first thread in this regard. I hope you remember that wind energy itself is a result of temperature diff. of atmosphere.

[Ovi]

Even the cycle of a heat pump at the end will end up in troposphere.

Say what??


Here in this case, both the liquid inside the tube and water are initially at the same temp of atmospheric level. The water evaporates and sucks heat in this process from the liquid. If it is not a heat pump, then evaporative coolers too aren't heat pump.

Of course they're not. They're called coolers for a reason!


This is quite an extraordinary case where the cold reservoir isn't in touch with it. The way cold troposphere is attached to it, is likely to be attached to everything in the world.

Vapor is vapor, if vapor produced by other means can work, then why not that.

Because in order to condense the vapor you need a cold reservoir and all you got is the upper troposphere!


Well, if you want to know how efficient extracting atmospheric heat is, then just go back to my first thread in this regard.

And see what? Random numbers? Do the REAL math using physical laws, show the equations and than maybe someone will be bothered to look.


I hope you remember that wind energy itself is a result of temperature diff. of atmosphere.
I already mentioned that in a previous post. And yes, since there are many wind turbines but no devices like those you described, it's reasonable to believe that wind turbines are far more efficient and economic.

There's no point for me to continue this useless posting, I'm out of here.

[pranabjyoti]

Say what??
Simple, the heat pump, which extracts heat from any source and dumps into the sink, at the end like all heat produced in the earth, the heat from that sink too go up with air and end up in the troposphere.

Of course they're not. They're called coolers for a reason!
Cooling means extracting heat from anything and you have to release the heat that had been extracted from the thing. THAT MEAN BASICALLY A HEAT PUMP. I have read about evaporative refrigeration system, I hope that too isn't a HEAT PUMP.

Because in order to condense the vapor you need a cold reservoir and all you got is the upper troposphere!
Troposphere is the cold reservoir for not only the toy but for every process on the Earth, because all processes at the end releases their heat into either atmosphere or in the ocean from where the heat will go to the troposphere.
[QUOTE=Ovi_1;1560924]And see what? Random numbers? Do the REAL math using physical laws, show the equations and than maybe someone will be bothered to look.
A very clear positive output at the end with data from REAL EXPERIMENTS DONE BY REAL PEOPLE FROM THE REAL WORLD.

I already mentioned that in a previous post. And yes, since there are many wind turbines but no devices like those you described, it's reasonable to believe that wind turbines are far more efficient and economic.
It is new way of generating electricity, you don't find anything doesn't mean that it can not exist. Einstein formulated E= MC2, but not proved before the making of the first atomic Boiler by Fermi. I have showed the way, anyone willing can try to make a working prototype to test that. I myself can do that if I have sufficient funding.

There's no point for me to continue this useless posting, I'm out of here.
Your choice. I am pretty sanguine that if I have presented the idea of the toy to you, you will certainly discard it by saying "it's against 2nd law of thermodynamics", when you have find that it exist in reality, you have invented the "troposphere theory". But, haven't yet answered the question that if one thing can produce work based on the troposphere, why other and fur more efficient machines and processes can not be invented. There is no mention of such machines means that there is huge scope for research and development in this area.