Re: Stirling Engine looks like Perpetual Motion


François Guillet wrote:
> "Mark Martin" <qed100@xxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit dans le message de
> news:1114830218.819964.212010@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> |
> | G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
> | > Demonstrated on "History channel" it only needs a slight
temperature
> | > change.
> |
> | Not just a temperature change, but a temperature difference.
> | Otherwise no work can be done. To maintain a gradient a constant
supply
> | of heat energy must be pumped to one side of the system.
>
> The game is to move heat energy from one side of the system to
another and
> this can be done with _no work_ (because of the conservation of
energy of
> the whole system) except that one just to balance the loses of the
machine,
> depending on its efficiency.
> Then we use the temperature difference to run a thermal motor.
>
> | No perpetual motion.
>
> Where did I miss the theoretical impossibility ?

The title of this thread is "Stirling Engine looks like Perpetual
Motion". I was commenting on the fact that it doesn't look like PM at
all.

-Mark Martin

.