Not everyone can be an AI. Would someone stoop as low as impersonating one? Well, it depends. I, for one, might weigh the pros and cons and decide it's for the best not to. Ha! To be or not to be 
Thermal Analysis of the Production Plant Process in the 1MW test in Doral, Florida (GiveADogABone)
-
-
Coming at this steam flow thing from the other end: the pressure difference across the 6 m DN40 pipe required for Rossi's claimed throughput would have to be about 3.5 bar.
Interesting. Can you explain in a little more detail how you derive this pressure? Just go over the procedure one more time.I do not think you take into account the equipment in the customer site. It is reasonable that you do not, because you do not know what this equipment is. There has to be something, because the fluid cools down a lot, from 102 deg C to 68 deg C. If it a radiator or heat exchanger, it would increase the pressure I assume. But suppose there is an auxiliary pump in the customer site? How would that affect your analysis?
Since the receiving end can't be below zero, there would have been at least 3.5 bar in the boiler (which of course would mean no steam at 102 C but only at 140 C which means there was no steam which means if Rossi moved anything through that pipe at all, it was dirty water).
I came to a similar conclusion using less rigorous methods. -
I think we can keep it simple because whatever there is on the customer side can't possibly create pressure below zero and since the pressure at Rossi's side was supposed to be 1 bar, that one bar is the maximum possible pressure difference between Rossi's end of the pipe and the customer's end. In reality the pressure on the customer's side must have been above zero, of course, (even if they stuffed the entire warehouse with nothing but vacuum pumps) but since even the theoretical maximum isn't high enough to account for the supposed throughput, it's a mute point to consider. Again: think of the e-cat in space. There is a vacuum outside and you can't get lower pressure than that. Punch a 40 mm whole in the wall and what flows out is your theoretical maximum. Add a length of pipe, a condenser, an upper condensation limit or whatever else you may think of and it gets LESS - not more.
-
So just to point out the obvious: Chemical energy is essentially electrical (electrostatic bonds stretching etc) and therefore low entropy.
This statement has been chosen for the urgent help support of an under developed mind.
Even a small child, sitting in front of a christmas tree (sorry ABD), knows that a candle has not much entropy. You literally can throw it as one piece at your brothers had. Thus a candle is true chemical energy at absolute low entropy.
But if you start to burn it, then the entropy may hurt your fingers and even sometimes burn down your house...
Thus, what a surprise the low entropy chemical energy becomes high entropy “chemical energy”!! -
Quote from Wyttenbach
Even a small child, sitting in front of a christmas tree (sorry ABD), knows that a candle has not much entropy. You literally can throw it as one piece at your brothers had. Thus a candle is true chemical energy at absolute low entropy.But if you start to burn it, then the entropy may hurt your fingers and even sometimes burn down your house...Thus, what a surprise the low entropy chemical energy becomes high entropy “chemical energy”!!
But then small children would therefore not pass GSCE in Science. If you take your understanding from the teachings of small children, however Biblically correct that may be when it comes to moral wisdom , you'll get a few errors in Physics and Chemistry.
Like this one. When a candle burns the (low entropy) chemical energy in the wax is converted to (high entropy) heat. Burning involves a massive increase in entropy. It is not entropy that is conserved, only energy. However, reversing entropy (going from host candle combustion products to candle + oxygen, while it is energetically possible, is physically impossible because it is contrary to the second law of thermodynamics. Many would argue that this is more fundamental (proven in terms of information theory) then energy conservation. This same idea, applied to chemical endothermic reactions shows it is difficult to unburn hydrocarbons. The difficulty can be quantified by the Carnot Limit.
I cannot understand why you continue attaching these unpleasant ad hom titles in large type to obviously wrong comments about science. I guess your audience is little children? Large type is equivalent to shouting - but it does not convince adults you are correct.
I have to say given this the knee-jerk -1 you attach to nearly all my posts seems a real accolade?
-
I cannot understand why you continue attaching these unpleasant ad hom titles in large type to obviously wrong comments about science. I guess your audience is little children? Large type is equivalent to shouting - but it does not convince adults you are correct.
Sorry @THH Your understanding of chemistry is children level!So just to point out the obvious:
You cannot convert heat into hydrocarbon fuel energy without an amount of waste heat given by the Carnot limit, that is in this case 80% as waste. So this idea would store only 20% of the 1MW.@THH: You make people believe that YouXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX are an expert in calorimetry. But why aren't You even able to correctly apply the simple law of Carnot?
The law of Carnot states how much mechanical energy You can draw out of a reservoir at temperature1 with the help of a reservoir at temperature2. The formula is undergraduate level and says:
E%mech = (T1-T2)/T1 what gives for Rossi: (103-68)/(273+103)= 9.3 % not 20%...
But that is not relevant because chemistry and Carnot are not related at all. Except both processes are controlled by thermometers...
You fundamentally mix up two basic physical properties: Chemical energy and physical energy. Chemical energy is the inner energy of a chemical substance. The physical energy is e.g. the energy (heat) the substance carries away after reaction. Only the physical energy part of chemical reaction may be subject to Carnot laws and also only if there are no phase changes involved.
If you synthesize for example Hexan, then all the energy You invest is chemically stored, what You loose is just a “small” part of the energy needed to cool down the hexan. Most of the process heat usually is recovered by reverse flow thermal heat exchange!
Disclaimer: This does not support any claims of planet Rossi! Most hydrocarbon synthesis processes need at least 500C and there is always a huge dump of output material.
But may be Rossi fooled everybody and delivered steam at 500C... (let's wait for the next false claim..)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX = Doxacious content removed Alan. (At THH's request) Darwin's Bulldog bites!
-
@Alan (or otehr moderator) - could you possibly delete the last post in which Wyttenbach tris to doxx me? Thanks.
Quote from WyttenbachThe law of Carnot states how much mechanical energy You can draw out of a reservoir at temperature1 with the help of a reservoir at temperature2. The formula is undergraduate level and says:E%mech = (T1-T2)/T1 what gives for Rossi: (103-68)/(273+103)= 9.3 % not 20%
We agree except I am not making the assumption you make about the return temperature, and therefore allowing double the temperature difference you do. But I'm happy to use your figure if you prefer, it makes no difference.Quote...But that is not relevant because chemistry and Carnot are not related at all. Except both processes are controlled by thermometers...You fundamentally mix up two basic physical properties: Chemical energy and physical energy. Chemical energy is the inner energy of a chemical substance. The physical energy is e.g. the energy (heat) the substance carries away after reaction.
And here we disagree. The Carnot limit does not apply ONLY to mechanical energy. It also applies to electrical energy. Otherwise we could convert heat into electricity more efficiently than is possible with an optimal (Carnot limit) heat engine - obviously untrue. This is the obvious mistake you make.Therefore the Carnot limit also applies to electrostatic energy. Therefore it also (modulo some correction below, which is why your mistake here is less obvious) applies to bond energy, since this is mostly just electrostatic energy. (Covalent bonds are weaker than ionic, but covalent bonds also correspond to a lower orbital energy state and therefore are electrostatic - just less obviously so). Hence to a good level of approximation when chemical reactions are strongly exothermic they are irreversible without using a lot of waste energy. This topic started with reference to making strongly endothermic reactions work (e.g. creating hydrocarbons) needed since Rossi has a lot of power to dispose of! Hence, for these you always have a lot of waste energy, but see below for a more precise answer.
More precision. Of course there is some entropy in chemistry independent of heat. If you increase the number of particles you increase entropy for example, and also there is significant entropy change when you change physical state. This entropy difference can be enough to make some endothermic reactions happen spontaneously - because the entropy lost as heat is made up by the increased disorder of the products relative to the reactants. I guess this known chemical fact is why you got confused and thought entropy rules do not apply to chemistry.
If you look at my previous posts you will see I explicitly made this proviso calling it "phase change entropy" but actually it is a bit broader than that and includes "particle number change". That does not help matters for the reactions considered, for example hydrocarbons always burn with more particles of product than reactant so the particle number entropy increases even without the emitted heat. Test this by asking yourself what is a highly endothermic reaction that has smaller numbers of product particles than reactants. You won't find one (other than phase change), though there are some weakly endothermic reactions which do exactly that.
You can look at entropies of formation of different chemicals (in a given phase) and work out this correction. It is a real correction - but it does not change the correct argument that you cannot store Rossi's energy in a highly endothermic reaction (for example making hydrocarbons) without very large amounts of wasted energy - and the reason for this is the Carnot Limit.
I have not found a really good explanation of this for you to read: here is an OK one:
http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/…eview/bp/ch21/entropy.phpQuoteOnly the physical energy part of chemical reaction may be subject to Carnot laws and also only if there are no phase changes involved.
That is 100% wrong. Carnot's Laws are the mechanical embodiment of entropy, and the same principle applies to chemical reactions which is why strongly exothermic reactions cannot be reversed using only heat without a lot of waste energy. If that were not true you could recharge batteries using heat at high levels of efficiency. there are ways to convert heat into chemical energy but they cannot break Carnot limit except inasfar as the products of the reaction embody more entropy than the reactants - and this is a relatively small effect compared with for example hydrocarbon burning.
Regards, THH
-
Display More
And here we disagree. The Carnot limit does not apply ONLY to mechanical energy. It also applies to electrical energy. Otherwise we could convert heat into electricity more efficiently than is possible with an optimal (Carnot limit) heat engine - obviously untrue.
@THH You are talking nonsese! Now You mix electrical energy with chemical energy. If You burn any chemical then and only then Carnot comes into play...
This is the obvious mistake you make.
Therefore the Carnot limit also applies to electrostatic energy.
Who did tell You that chemical reaction energy is elctrostatic energy only?
Therefore it also (modulo some correction below, which is why your mistake here is less obvious) applies to bond energy, since this is just electrostatic energy. Hence to a good level of approximation when chemical reactions are strongly exothermic they are irreversible without using a lot of waste energy. This topic started with reference to making strongly endothermic reactions work (e.g. creating hydrocarbons) needed since Rossi has a lot of power to dispose of! Hence, for these you always have a lot of waste energy, but see below for a more precise answer.
I can only recommend to look at reactions where (-)dH is >> TdS. Entropy S and Enthalpy H are decoupled and not correlated with Carnot...
Further on: Carnot applies to cycled processes which are free of phase changes and of thermic (Bolzmann statistics equilibrium..) nature only.
To finally take you out of the game: Did You ever look at a fuel cell??
How is it with your @THH logik possible to convert up to 80% of the chemical energy of H2 into current?
Best in practice according Wiki citation: In 2008 Honda released a demonstration fuel cell electric vehicle (the Honda FCX Clarity) with fuel stack claiming a 60% tank-to-wheel efficiency.
-
Quote from Wyttenbach
@THH You are talking nonsese! Now You mix electrical energy with chemical energy. If You burn any chemical then and only then Carnot comes into play...
Well, "burning" is just a highly exothermic chemical reaction so it looks like you are agreeing with me.Quote from WyttenbachWho did tell You that chemical reaction energy is electrostatic energy only?
Well, I have hedged my bets a bit here by saying approximately. But actually chemical energy comes from changes in electron orbital energy which is mostly electrostatic. There is also angular momentum and magnetic energy, but all these forms are low entropy (angular momentum is the same as mechanical) compared with the heat released from highly exothermic reactions. There are additional terms due to the number of ways a given macroscopic state can be arranged for example in a semiconductor where energy levels are half occupied, but that is the exception.If you think I'm wrong propose your reaction (just one will do) that breaks this rule and is highly endothermic as what is proposed on ECW. We can look up the formation entropies and compare them at the required temperatures with the enthalpy.
I think you are disagreeing so violently because you don't see the underlying unifying physics here (all chemistry is fundamentally just quantum mechanics applied to electron wave functions).
QuoteHow is it with your @THH logik possible to convert up to 80% of the chemical energy of H2 into current?
Thank you for making my point. H2 energy is chemical, and hence mostly electrostatic. It can therefore be converted efficiently into electricity! If it were not converted, but burnt, then that would be an exothermic reaction that also increased entropy. There is no law says you can't increase entropy...
the rule is electricity <----> chemical in principle can be 100% efficient, though in practice not
electrical ---> heat 100% efficient (obviously - gains entropy)
heat ---> electrical (Carnot limit)
chemical ---> heat 100% (obviously gains entropy)
heat ---> chemical (Carnot limit but modified a bit because products can have higher entropy than reactants)
Best wishes, THH no FUD zone.
-
Quote
I can only recommend to look at reactions where (-)dH is >> TdS. Entropy S and Enthalpy H are decoupled and not correlated with Carnot...
You need to go to first principles and count in changes in state of number of particles as I've said. My point is not that Carnot limit exactly applies, but that in highly exothermic reactions it closely applies unless you have dramatic phase changes as well.
All you have to do is find me one reaction (in theory) which is strongly endothermic (storing hydrocarbons level of energy) and runs without lots of waste heat. if what you claim is true that should be easy?
QuoteFurther on: Carnot applies to cycled processes which are free of phase changes and of thermic (Bolzmann statistics equilibrium..) nature only.
Not quite, phase changes etc modify the entropy equation - it still applies. I've said that from the start.
Quote
To finally take you out of the game: Did You ever look at a fuel cell??
You are confused about this see above. I am the one arguing that electrical and chemical energy are more or less equivalent and can therefore be converted with high efficiency, not you! -
And here we disagree. The Carnot limit does not apply ONLY to mechanical energy. It also applies to electrical energy. Otherwise we could convert heat into electricity more efficiently than is possible with an optimal (Carnot limit) heat engine - obviously untrue. This is the obvious mistake you make.
Therefore the Carnot limit also applies to electrostatic energy. Therefore it also (modulo some correction below, which is why your mistake here is less obvious) applies to bond energy, since this is mostly just electrostatic energy.
Thank you for making my point. H2 energy is chemical, and hence mostly electrostatic. It can therefore be converted efficiently into electricity! If it were not converted, but burnt, then that would be an exothermic reaction that also increased entropy. There is no law says you can't increase entropy...
Huxlymystry a new part of empirical chemistry... which proves a carnot limit of 82% for converting H2 into current... at what temperature bdw.??
Can you stop this nonsene please!
-
Quote from Wyttenbach
Huxlymystry a new part of empirical chemistry... which proves a carnot limit of 82% for converting H2 into current... at what temperature bdw.??Can you stop this nonsene please!
That is false. But, if it were not false, it would not make sense! Carnot limit applies to converting heat into low entropy forms of energy...
-
Therefore the Carnot limit also applies to electrostatic energy. Therefore it also (modulo some correction below, which is why your mistake here is less obvious) applies to bond energy, since this is mostly just electrostatic energy.
That is false. But, if it were not false, it would not make sense! Carnot limit applies to converting heat into low entropy forms of energy...
@THH Does this mean that You discovered Your error??
-
Dear Wyttenbach,
Discussing this matter with you is rather like conversing with a brain-damaged parrot. Most confusing.
Quote from original quote from me aboveThat is false. But, if it were not false, it would not make sense! Carnot limit applies to converting heat into low entropy forms of energy...
Quote from Wyttenbach quoting THH from some while agoTherefore the Carnot limit also applies to electrostatic energy. Therefore it also (modulo some correction below, which is why your mistake here is less obvious)applies to bond energy, since this is mostly just electrostatic energy.
This is ambiguous out of context as copied here by Wyttenbach. Carnot limit "applies" to conversion from heat to low entropy forms of energy (mechanical, electric). However it is true in the context I postd it, where it was clear we were talking about conversion from heat.
Quote from Wyttenbach quoting THH recently.... That is false. But, if it were not false, it would not make sense! Carnot limit applies to converting heat into low entropy forms of energy...
This is precisely correct, though you need its original context (quoted above).Quote from Wyttenbach summarising THHs recent reply@THH Does this mean that You discovered Your error??
Perhaps Wyttenbach has not understood through all this conversation that the Carnot limit limits how efficiently heat can be converted to low entropy energy?
-
Quote
I will again ask the seemingly perilous question here: Why is "Darwin's Bulldog" in need of such deep anonymity and so much protection of identity?
Anonymity is a courtesy on a site like this, which many find helpful. The reason for having it is that it allows comment which would otherwise just not be made. I have not myself found any correlation here between troll-like behaviour, or even lack of basic courtesy, and non-anonymity. Have you?
-
Quote
THH suddenly appeared here not all that long ago with instant "Master" designation
You are surely not saying that the weird site epithets according to length of time here or something constitute "reputation"?
As always, internet reputation relates to content posted. I can't say I'me massively popular here since clearly more skeptical of LENR than most. Your view, that nothing I say can be trusted a priori, seems quite common. It seems to have terminally confused Wyttenbach who is on this thread having a tough time reconciling his certainty that I'm a liar with the facts. (Perhaps a slight exaggeration, maybe Wyttenbach's headline insults are for effect rather than from conviction).
-
Personally, I doubt nearly everything that THH posts here for this reason and for its certain lack of brilliance. Anyone here can see that I myself value some anonymity. But I, and every one else here, had to earn their reputations (for good or ill) by tedious effort. THH suddenly appeared here not all that long ago with instant "Master" designation and a "blocked" history... check that out, please. This "bulldog" somehow contrived a pile of inaccessible "posts" and "likes" and of course that itself suggests deeper motives.
To participants here I ask: Do you really want your innovative thinking to fall into unidentified "hands"?
There is a very obvious cause for what is visible. I have not discussed this with THH nor with administrators here. So this is just what I can see. THH is almost certainly a known scientist or researcher, who was able, by virtue of that, to obtain that courtesy from administrators. He is mostly asking questions, not particularly asserting fact, other than what he asserts about the discussion here. HIs position is skeptical, but not pseudo-skeptical, generally. Some of his questions or positions show what I might call an "infection" from standard pseudoskeptical thinking, but I don't see him as being nailed to any of that. He would probably be hearing these memes from many others in his life and I, for one, am grateful that he brings this here in the manner that he does. It provides an opportunity to respond.There is an idea that I've seen floating around, which is that we can be infected by "bad thinking." It's true to a degree, but only if we have some very poor habits. We will, indeed, take on the thinking and memes of people with whom we associate, it is a normal social function. However, the idea that such people should be excluded is part of the bad habit, of "group-think" that can poison scientific inquiry.
I have a suggestion for him. I hope that he can view his own profile. I suggest that he review what has been written here, and edit or delete posts that might be "security risks." I've seen one, maybe. Then ask administrators to open the profile, which, of course, will not contain identity-revealing information. I can remember, occasionally, that so-and-so wrote something, but how can I find it? One way is by looking at the profile. If some care is taken, the risk is minimal.
(There could be a problem: others may have responded to a post, quoting the post. In that case the post should be deleted, because it will then be more difficult to find through the profile. It will still be accessible through google, but that is already the case.)
I do have issues with anonymity, I dislike it. However, if I have a correct understanding of THH's position -- which might be correct or not -- I understand the need, and support it. I would place tighter restrictions on incivility for anonymous posters than on open ones, not that incivility from identified users isn't a problem. However, I have not noticed THH being uncivil, at all. He is a positive contributor to discussion here.
-
Quote
Some of his questions or positions show what I might call an "infection" from standard pseudoskeptical thinking, but I don't see him as being nailed to any of that.
I think my prior opinion (which we all have, admit or not) would be quite strongly that LENR does not exist as a nuclear phenomena from meta-arguments and "physics not likley to be that wrong" arguments. I admit that both are weak, in the sense that they would be revised given strongly factual evidence to the contrary, but I'm also naturally skeptical so need very robust experimental evidence for it to count as strongly factual. If Rossi had what he claimed that would be robust evidence, of course, and easily demonstrated. As would 10% heat excesses in a system with bullet-proof calorimetry and controls (difficult to obtain that at such a low signal but possible with a closed system, multiple thermal barriers, and a long run time). As would convincing transmutation evidence or radioactivity.QuoteTHH is almost certainly a known scientist or researcher
I am honoured by this guess, but it is false.
-
I came to a similar conclusion using less rigorous methods.
All of this discussion points up the problem of an alleged Guaranteed Performance Test where the full heat disposition could not be determined. Consider this hypothetical scenario:The customer area contains a water heater and pump. It heats and pressurizes water, and sends the water to the "Plant." The water is superheated, i.e., if the pressure is reduced, it will boil. So at the plant outlet, there is steam, which has been superheated by some heating in the Plant itself. With a possibility like this, Rossi's instruction to Penon not to consider the temperature of the incoming water doesn't look so "conservative."
I found it all very odd. Industrial Heat would want to know the *actual operation* of the Plant, and satisfying some actually vague test parameters would not be of high interest -- except for the matter of triggering a payment. They would want to know how long one of the devices would operate before needing refueling or other maintenance. They would want to know the actual operation of the Plant, with error bars. Not "conservative." Penon could have added to such an assessment a minimum possible value, i.e, a highly conservative low estimate of COP.
Rossi on his blog disclosed refueling on the *last day of the test.* What? Why? What happened to that "spent fuel"? It was clearly IH property. Where did it go?
Not taking great care to to measure and examine pressure and temperature at the inlet of the Plant was a major blunder for an "ERV." Or fraud. Not adding instrumentation or methods for examining the condition of the working fluid leaving the plant was a basic violation of the original agreement test protocol, but that test protocol was not designed to detect fraud mechanisms, nor even certain possible errors or artifacts.
Rossi's fraud in setting up the "customer" and conditions such as to give him almost exclusive control of the "test" destroyed the ability of Industrial Heat to be satisfied, even if the Plant were actually generating XE.
An independent test must be *independent*, such that manipulation by a fraud is nearly impossible. The Doral test was far from that.
Excluding IH from visiting the "customer area" -- Rossi lied about that, it was not, as he claimed, part of the Terms Sheet agreement between IH and Rossi and Johnson -- was tolerable, unless this was a GPT, in which case it was setting up conditions for fraud.
Excluding the IH engineer, Murray, early on in the test, from visiting IH's own plant, as explicitly allowed in the Terms Sheet, was a gross violation.
IH apparently decided to let it slide, to let Rossi hang himself, basically. Or maybe he would actually make the plant work! IH always played both sides, giving the "eccentric inventor" maximum freedom while still protecting themselves.
Rossi has maybe a week left to respond.
The issues of heat generation and the effect on the warehouse temperature set up rebuttable presumptions that indicate the generation of far less than 1 MW. Planet Rossi then speculates extensively as to how it might have been handled. And the secrecy of the customer and the customer process allows an entire universe of possibilities. Or imagined, impossible possibilities. But what was actually done? There was something in the customer area. What was it? There is a single reality there, not a universe of possibilities, which only refers to how we think about it. Rossi said "endothermic reaction." As that started to crumble, he then added that there were other ways of disposing of the heat, and since the plant operated 24/7, the other ways had to be able to handle the full power. So "endothermic" was, even if partially true, a smokescreen.
These other ways, if known, would reveal nothing about the customer's allegedly secret process. Rossi has wrapped himself in lies, deceptions, and misinformation. For years.
I can hope that Rossi will provide evidence that will reverse this conclusion. I'll be watching and reading carefully.
I am not Rossi's judge. My concern is LENR and the future of LENR. If there is fraud involved, anywhere in the field, we need to identify the possibility quickly, or at least sideline and marginalize it until independent testing demonstrates the reality.
-
How is it with your @THH logik possible to convert up to 80% of the chemical energy of H2 into current?
Written in large type.
THH is talking about converting heat to stored chemical energy. The response here looks at chemical energy being converted to electricity, at "up to 80%" efficiency. What would be 100%? Generally, burning the hydrogen. Consider a more extreme but logically equivalent question: How is it possible to convert up to 100% of the chemical energy of H2 into heat?Looking at this discussion of the Carnot limit, I see THH patiently explaining, and Wyttenbach shouting. Wyttenbach is a mathematician, nothing to be ashamed of, but I have some mathematicians transfer their experience with mathematics outside of the field. They are accustomed to applying mathematical logic and then do the same with far more complex and fuzzier facts and interpretations, and then get upset when others challenge them, and can display high certainty that they are right.
Even when they are simply ignorant, making lots of unwarranted assumptions that they have not distinguished. I have occasionally seen it be impossible to communicate with such a person. I know a PhD mathematician, with whom I had a history of major cooperation, essentially implose when he found out I was working with cold fusion. "Impossible!" And then he concluded I was therefore a loose cannon, and attempted to exclude me from his organization. He ended up excluding himself, because he repeated this behavior with a few people and it became completely obvious. He was totally impervious to evidence. The evidence must be wrong, therefore to be immediately rejected, because cold fusion is IMPOSSIBLE!
What's impossible? What, indeed, is "cold fusion"? This wasn't science, his position, it was belief in personal or collective interpretation, standing opinion. Like a religion, only with, maybe, some better excuses.
I am suspicious of theoretical analysis when not backed by empirical evidence. THH has asked the question, okay, if higher efficiency conversion of heat to chemical energy is possible, what are examples and could they be relevant here? What Wyttenbach shouts here is not an example at all of this conversion, but the opposite.
I developed a physics intuition and was able to get decent grades in Feynman's physics classes in 1961-63 as a result, with little study, I could generally derive formulas I needed, and my reaction to THH's claims about the Carnot limit is that it applies to chemical processes, which create no exception. That intuition is always rebuttable. Hence the request for examples.
From Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…s_theorem_(thermodynamics)
QuoteApplicability to fuel cells and batteries
Since fuel cells and batteries can generate useful power when all components of the system are at the same temperature [...], they are clearly not limited by Carnot's theorem, which states that no power can be generated when [...] [there is no temperature difference]. This is because Carnot's theorem applies to engines converting thermal energy to work, whereas fuel cells and batteries instead convert chemical energy to work.[6] Nevertheless, the second law of thermodynamics still provides restrictions on fuel cell and battery energy conversion.[7]
