Jim_Mich wrote:If a simple vortex tube can self-sort the KE of air then why is it that Bill doubts me when I talk about using CF to self-separate weights into faster moving weights with greater KE and a slower moving weights with lesser KE?
Jim, I doubt air in a vortex tube can "self sort" any more than weights in your hypothetical inertia powered engine can "self sort".
You see, when it comes to "self sorting" I hold no favourites :D
Last edited by ovyyus on Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bill, do you doubt that the vortex tube is able to separate air into hot and cold? Or do you object to the use of the phrase "self-sort"? Maybe I'm using the wrong words to describe what I mean?
Jim, of course I doubt the air in a vortex tube "self sorts". The device is driven by a proven energy source. As far as I can tell, there is no proven energy source driving your proposed inertia powered ectropy engine.
The vortex tube, also known as the Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube, is a mechanical device that separates a compressed gas into hot and cold streams. It has no moving parts.
One simple explanation is that the outer air is under higher pressure than the inner air (because of centrifugal force). Therefore the temperature of the outer air is higher than that of the inner air.
Since the tube has no moving parts then it adds nothing to the energy of the incoming air and it is the motion of the air alone that causes the air to separate into hot and cold. Thus the air self-separates or self-sorts (due to CF) into hot (more KE) and cold (less KE).
Maybe I'm using the wrong words to describe what happens? What words would you use?
Jim, I think we both know there is a proven energy source driving thermal separation in the vortex tube. Moving parts appear irrelevant. A legitimate energy source can be proven prior to application of a vortex tube, or an engine. Maybe yours will be the first engine in history that defines and proves it's own energy source after it is running?
The vortex tube has compressed gas pass into it - the compression done elsewhere, beforehand - so mechanical work was done on the gas to give it potential in the form of pressure inside the container or compressor & velocity in the tube upon release - interestingly what happened to the temperature on average [volumes x temperature] after separation ? - N.B. there would be some contribution to mechanical warming of the gas molecules due to kinetic impacting with the venturi walls etc - remember that Bernoulli theorem & Boyle's gas laws are founded on the assumption that CoE is the governing principle & the fluid dynamics math worked from that basis i.e. CoE - or is it to hard to empirically determine ? - thermal imaging could help ?!
What would happen if you had a wind sock type device where instead of compressed air simple naturally occurring flowing air moved thru the vortex venturi - would it separate into hot & cold due Cf's of a vortex tube & what would be the average temperature before entry & after at the two exiting ports given we knew the temperatures & volumes ?
If there is any way to inch forward then the CoE laws need to be examined in detail re thermal footprints before & after device else you need input energy to give the air potential - however, if there is an average temperature increase or decrease allowing for work done potentializing the air beforehand then the CoE laws do not hold for fluid dynamics & vortex's & our math models are wrong & incomplete.
The point is, that the agent was considered internal, it was still considered true PM [at the time] - Bessler included it in his book in the section headed "To Those Who Do Not Believe" - i.e. do not believe in the possibility of PM, so he must have considered/believed it true PM.
I am not certain, but it looks me like "To Those Who Do Not Believe" is the title of Lotharius Sumach de Koesfeld, Doctor of Medicine and Professor of Mathematics Letter. Not that it makes any difference, as all the letters are supporting him, so obvious they believe.
dax .. JJ Becher - I don't have the digital version of John's book DT so perhaps you can provide the detail - in it it says that Becher was well after Drebbel - it also says that Becher says he invented physical or mechanical PM "using the effect of water continually beating against a machine"
Yes, Fletcher that’s what it says, but is too long and cut up to post a quote. Beecher’s claim sounds a lot like that other scoundrel John Ernst Worrell Keely ;)))
