Thermal Analysis of the Production Plant Process in the 1MW test in Doral, Florida (GiveADogABone)

THHuxley:

Quote

Discussing this matter with you is rather like conversing with a brain-damaged parrot.

LOL.

Quote from Wyttenbach

THHuxley wrote:

Indeed.

Quote

@THH: Do you still believe that chemical reactions are limited by the Carnot law? Or did you in the mean time consult your undergraduate textbook?

Wyttenbach is demonstrating that he does not understand the issue. Chemical reactions, per se, are not limited by the Carnot limit, which is about heat engines, and which does govern the conversion of heat energy to chemical energy. It does not govern the reverse. Chemical energy can be converted to heat energy, essentially up to 100%, as I understand the matter.

Quote

Our discussion started with that i said, citation: Chemical reaction are not Carnot bound, because You @THH claimed the Carnot!!! efficieny of the Rossi process must be 20% at most.

This is so confused I suspect he is drunk. The issue is not the "Rossi process," the efficiency of the reactor, but of the so-called "customer process," allegedly endothermic. and THH is claiming that this process, as to storing energy in a chemical product, is indeed Carnot-limited. I consider that THH is correct, and that if it were not so, contradictions to the laws of thermodynamics would appear.

Quote

I hope at least the other Forum-members know that Carnot is relevant for the generation of mechanical energy only. Further that Carnot describes a circular process and Chemical reactions are never circular! (Except a famous one often shown in student exhibitions.)

There is a confusion here, due to the fact that the Carnot Theory is stated with respect to a heat engine producing mechanical work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…s_theorem_(thermodynamics)

Quote

All heat engines between two heat reservoirs are less efficient than a Carnot heat engine operating between the same reservoirs.
Every Carnot heat engine between a pair of heat reservoirs is equally efficient, regardless of the working substance employed or the operation details.

Now, here is my thinking. Chemical energy can generally be converted to other forms of energy (mechanical work, electricity) quite efficiently. If we can convert heat to chemical energy with high efficiency, this chemical production becomes the "working substance" in a heat engine that then would beat the Carnot efficiency. Another other line of thinking looks at rearranging chemical bonds as a kind of "mechanical work," operating against "springs" or bonds, storing energy in very small structures in stead of large ones.

I don't trust theoretical analysis (including my own) unless it is backed by high experience. Hence the question I asked, "are there any examples of endothermic chemical reactions, that can convert heat to chemical energy at high efficiency?" If there are, all my theoretical intuition is worthless.

Quote

Carnot is related to entropy as Chemical reactions are related to entropy. But in most chemical reactions dealing with fuel synthesis the Chemical energy stored in the fuel is much much bigger than any loss due to entropy changes.
But as a man with a true British history THH is used to images a classical coal power plant where they simply burn the coal... May be we should ask him about the best Carnot factor of a coal plant?

This is utterly irrelevant. "Chemical reactions" dealing with fuel synthesis are not Carnot-limited, per se. They are not using heat to generate chemical energy. (as by creating, say, a burnable fuel.)

Quote

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

ABD is a moron as I am a priest of science.., or, I wont tell you, - bad luck.. and improve your guesses.

My point. Thanks.

Quote from Urban Eriksson

This was quite an interesting discussion! As always I think THH sounds pretty convincing, especially if you consider raising the electrostatic potential as some kind of work being carried out. Can we come up with some concrete example reactuib (with numbers) so we can see more clearly what happens here? One thing that I wonder about is the "waste heat". What is that, and in what way is it wasted? Does it need to leave the system and be ventilated out for example?

Thanks. I have had, considering this issue, the same question. Without yet getting into a specific chemical example, consider a closed system with two heat reservoirs, 1 and 2, lets make them identical for simplicity, except that one is at temperature T1, the other at T2.

Temperature difference represents a difference in the kinetic energy of the reservoir contents, considered as individual particles. That is, temperature is kinetic energy (mechanical!) except that it is statistical in nature.

Now, we may add or subtract energy or material from the closed system. There is also a work object, W, which is at some temperature, generally such that it is between T1 and T2. But what happens in the system while it is closed? The temperature difference can be used to perform work within the system. That work will do two things: it may create other forms of energy in the "Work object", W, such as chemical energy. However, some of this process will simply raise the temperature of reservoir 2, while lowering the temperature of reservoir 1, and raising, as well, the temperature (generally) of W.

The temperature difference between R1 and R2 was created by an addition of energy from the outside, call that energy H.

If there is an endothermic reaction in W, chemical energy will be stored in W We understand that this process is not spontaneous. To obtain it, the temperature of W must be raised. When the system reaches equilibrium, there may still be some energy difference between R1 and R2. Some of the input energy remains there. However, W will be at a higher temperature. The heat stored in that energy is clearly "waste heat." It did not end up as chemical energy. As well, the energy difference between R1 and R2 might be considered waste heat. It cannot be recovered within the system( except perhaps by some more efficient process, which could reduce it, creating a new product.)

"Cyclic process" was mentioned. A possibly practice process for converting heat to chemical energy breaks the closed system, allowing inputs and outputs, and if one gets fuzzy about this, an intellectual mess is created.

Input could be more heat, perhaps through a heat exchanger, that raises the temperature of R1, and likewise a heat exchanger that lowers the temperature of R2.
But that would simply raise the temperature of W more, and there would be diminishing return.
In order to operate this continuously, (i.e, through repeated cycles), W product must be removed and W source added. However, this will not improve efficiency, it will merely allow continuous operation. To study efficiency, my sense, look at the closed system. There is a heat engine running off of a temperature difference. R2 might also be W (and likely is, in Wittenbach's model). Regardless, the system operates to convert thermal energy to chemical energy (which can then later be utilized at high efficiency.)

In such a system, does the Carnot limit apply to the production of chemical energy from thermal energy? I did not find any sources that were explicit on this, though there were statements can could be taken that way. My intuitive analysis indicates, yes, it applies. However, my training is to both respect and distrust intuitive analysis. Hence my search for an authoritative source that is not merely dicta, perhaps accidentally saying something not intended, or, in the alternative, an actual physical example of an allegedly more efficient process that breaks the Carnot limit.

Wyttenbach alleged fuel cells as a counterexample, but I quoted Wikipedia on that, explicitly denying that fuel cells break the Carnot limit, because they are not heat engines, and they are not recharged by heat. My sense is that the Carnot limit arises from the statistical nature of heat as distinct from more direct forms of energy.

In considering the application of this to the Doral "customer process," we would have as T1, allegedly steam at about 100 C. We would have W, probably at room temperature as loaded. Let's call it 25 C. So the Carnot limit would be, first pass, using absolute temperature (C+273), 1 - T2/T1, or 1 - 298/373, or 20%. If we use the return water temperature, say it is 60 C., it would be less. But there is another factor, phase change energy in the steam, if it is live steam.

Phase change energy is a form of chemical energy, dealing with the bonds between molecules, rather than intra-molecular bonding. It confuses this appication. So to make this a simple temperature difference, we would need to consider, say, a high pressure system where the water does not change phase. At what temperature would a megawatt of power be conveyed to W if not at the lower temperature possible through phase change? When W is operated on, the phase of that coolant will change, thus raising T1 over what it would be without the phase change. The phase change thus stabilizes, for a time, T1, until the engine "runs out of steam."

Nevertheless, at each point the engine is operating on a temperature difference, not on the absolute energy content of T1. I'd think the Carnot limit still applies. It is merely that T1 is "larger" than a naive expectation.

To really nail this theoretically, I would need to go through the underlying theory in much more detail. Without that: what do authoritative sources say, and what counterexamples are there, if any?

Quote from THHuxley

I'm not so confident about the limits of catalysis in chemical reactions.

Catalysis in chemical reactions could produce an apparent violation, but not really. The energy that would be released or stored through catalysis would be chemical energy, and catalysis basically borrows energy from the product, it must immediately return it or nothing happens. So H2 and O2 may be mixed and nothing happens, until an ignition temperature is reached. H2 and O2 are stable at room temperature. Very stable. However, a bit of platinum or palladium can break the H2 bond, and atomic hydrogen is highly reactive. And then the heat generated raises the local temperature above ignition and the whole mass of mixture explodes, if the mixture is right.

That energy release is stored chemical energy. The catalyst merely creates a pathway for its release. I doubt that a reaction will be found where catalysis creates endothermic storage of heat as chemical energy. Catalysis will trigger exothermic reactions, which power themselves. An endothermic reaction moves in the opposite direction, the individual reactions require an energy source.

The Wikipedia article on endothermic reactions gives the melting of ice and the evaporation of water as examples. Imagine a population of water molecules. They have various velocities, as a distribution based on temperature. At the surface, some of them have enough velocity to overcome the bonds with the other water, and they escape. This occurs below the boiling point, constantly. The escape is theoretically reversible, and water will indeed capture some water vapor from the air, but the process has a different rate in the two directions. When the faster water molecules leave the bulk, the average kinetic energy is lowered, so the bulk cools from evaporation. It's kind of like Maxwell's demon, only operating in the other direction. It is equalizing something. And gets us into entropy.

Quote from THHuxley

The issue with phase change is that there is a large entropy difference between the two states, and the higher entropy state has higher heat of formation, which is why heat can be converted into phase change with no waste. To take the best example, water liquid->gas does indeed absorb a lot of energy, as we have previously noted.

Personally, I attempt to understand what's going on with the evaporation of water in terms that don't involve high-level abstractions like entropy (but that do involved abstractions like the molecular nature of water). Nevertheless, in addressing why evaporation is not symmetrical, reversible, under a particular set of conditions that are not at equilibrium, I did note that I was approaching "entropy," i.e, disorder vs order.

As to the practical matter before us, one of the ways that a megawatt could have been handled would have been by evaporating water, and this one has the most practical method for removing the "product" from the warehouse. Mix it with a lot of air and blow it out. However ... that requires a lot of air movement, or a steam plume would become obvious. Similarly, using ice would require constant delivery of ice. And then a lot of water going down the drain. And other problems if the drain water is too hot. And serious expense if cooling water from the city mains is used.

In the end, this is all not terribly relevant. I.e., people can figure out what *might have been done*, but what would actually matter would be what *was* done, and the evidence for and against that. And the whole question is, my opinion, only part of a subsidiary level of defense by Industrial Heat, because a General Performance Test under the uncontested conditions -- Rossi control -- made no sense, and almost certainly was not done with consent to a Test, but only to an installation for the sale of power. I doubt that the issue of actual Plant peformance is going to go to a jury, though it is not impossible.

Quote from THHuxley

As to the practical matter before us, one of the ways that a megawatt could have been handled would have been by evaporating water,

Also Rossi's claimed 100C 0 bar atm relative water/steam is not ideal for generating more steam - different to get enough heat flow. Technically, his setup does not work several ways round.

I wasn't thinking "steam" when I wrote "evaporating water." Transfer the heat to water from the mains. Spray that water into an air flow and blow it out a vent. The evaporation is endothermic, period, even at room temperature. Let's forget about a high humidity day, let's be generous.

This did not happen. There would have been visible equipment and effects. I would have been expensive (water isn't as cheap as we think! -- and the water utility will assume that it's going down the drain -- and it could go down the drain if one doesn't want a steam plume -- and the charge doubles from the water price.)

We have an Occam's Razor conclusion at this point. Such are always rebuttable, but ... not with such thin hypotheticals as I've seen.

In a way, some of those discussing this are like passengers on the Titanic arguing over how safe the ship was, after it hit the iceberg.

Quote from Wyttenbach

THHuxley wrote:
All powerplants converting heat into electricity are bound by Carnot.

@THH: To resolve the mystry: Modern power plants are not pure 'classical Carnot' machines as they efficiently use the kinetic head flow of the thermal expansion, which does not exactly follow a Bolzmann statistics. It's easy to understand. If You heat a pot of moleculs, they move uncorrelated in any direction. If You extract the momentum out of the expanding explosive motion of burning fuel, then you can harvest more energy than classical Carnot machines allow.
Modern gas - powerplants are just above 62% efficiency!
If you look just at the temperature of their operation, they strictly follow the Carnot law. But if You would use the same amount of energy to heat a classical pot, todays performance would be over Carnot. Virtually Carnot allows any efficiency below 100% but the material wont allow it.

What is being described is not a pure heat engine. Wyttenbach is not clear, but it seems that he is describing harvesting energy from a combustion reaction, which produces both heat and mechanical energy (pressure, for example).

I referred to the issue with the practical example before us, dissipating a megawatt of power, delivered as (slightly) superheated steam, to be cooled to, say, 60 C. The power available from that is not purely heat energy, most of it is, in fact, phase change energy. The heat of evaporation of water, returned when the water condenses (and very efficiently). This, however, is the heat to be managed, and it would be applied to the working chemistry as heat, not as any other form of energy that would be of major relevance.

This, then, is equivalent to a classical heat engine where the product has more energy than the feedstock ("endothermic reaction"). As I mentioned, this is conceptually equivalent to compressing very many tiny springs, each one storing a little "mechanical energy," only, because this involves chemical bonds, we call it "chemical energy

The reactor working fluid, superheated steam, is a reservoir held at 100C by condensing steam, which releases that heat.