﻿
Publications
 German Treshchalov, head of ERG

A Joke by a Great Scientist or Reality?

full version of this article is here

The debate surrounding alternative energy sources has not died down but is becoming more burning with every passing day. This article    partly (and maybe directly) discusses the material published in issue No 3 of the magazine in 2005, an article entitled .

Background

A group of engineers has constructed a hydraulic turbine to receive energy from a free flow of water (a free flow hydraulic unit). However, when its capacity was measured it was established that it generated more energy than it was designed for. It is well-known that a flow of water has kinetic energy that can be extracted (which is what free-flow turbines do [2]). However, it is impossible to extract all of its kinetic energy. In order to do this, the flow should be stopped completely and then it would cease to be a flow. That is why the velocity of water flow at the exit from a working unit of turbine is slower than its flow at the entrance – it is precisely this difference that defines the efficiency of any facility. Considering the fact that the kinetic energy is known as being proportional to the square of the speed, and that the energy decreases by four times when the speed decreases, it will be easy to calculate that, let’s say, when the water flow speed at the turbine input and output is equal to 1m/sec and 0.5 m/s, respectively, we will be able to extract 75% of the kinetic energy from the flow. Strictly speaking, the power of the free-flow turbine is calculated by a semiempirical formula (1) (this formula can also be applied to calculate the power of wind turbines)

P = K * V3 * S * p
(1)

where V – incoming flow speed; S – the square of the turbine’s effective cross section across the flow; p – moving medium density; K – constant coefficient that depends on a turbine type and is usually equal to 0.1– 0.35. This formula represents the very kinetic energy of the flow per a time unit, because VSp is right the water mass that goes through the turbine at one second and the formula (1) takes on the following form, which is familiar to us: 2()2 22 mV VSp V E== However, it should be considered that, according to the flow continuity condition, the flow’s square must increase when the outward flow’s speed drops. This leads to degradation in the flow evenness at the turbine’s outlet and an increase in turbulence, which negatively affects the unit’s efficiency. In order to decrease these factors’ adverse effect in traditional turbines, expanding cones are installed at their outlets, which partly increases the efficiency. Because empirical coefficient K of the formula (1) includes the twain from the kinetic energy formula denominator, the hydraulic and mechanical efficiency coefficient of the turbine, losses per irregularity and turbulence in the incoming flow and so on, it accepts values of less than 0.3. This coefficient is measured through an empirical way by means of natural tests of a specific turbine. This coefficient is often called the WEUC, the watercourse energy utilization coefficient, by an analogy with the wind turbine WEUC – the wind energy utilization coefficient.

As we have already mentioned, this facility produced even a greater amount of energy than the total kinetic energy of the flow.

Where does this additional energy received from the facility come?

Does the flow of water have kinetic energy only?

(Here we do not consider the internal (thermal) energy of water or the energy of the intermolecular and interatomic bonds of water as a  substance.)

Let us try to answer these questions.

Let us take one cubic metre of water (with dimensions of 1m * 1m * 1m) flowing with a velocity of 1 m/s.

There is no doubt about its kinetic energy, which is:

Ek = m * V 2  / 2  =  1000(kg) * 1(m/s) 2  /  2  = 500 (Joule )

However, there is also pressure by the top layers of water on the bottom ones (potential energy). If we let this cube of water spread, then we can extract it. Considering that the gravity centre of the cube is at the middle of its height, that is h = 0.5 m, it is equal to:

Ep = m* g * h  =  1000(kg)  *  9.8 (m/s2) *  0.5(m)  =  4900 (Joule )

This means that the potential energy of this cubic metre of water is up by almost 10 times on its kinetic energy. It is easy to calculate that, at a speed of 0.5m/sec, this difference will amount to almost 40 times!

In other words, we can see that – in addition to the kinetic energy – the flow also has potential energy whose magnitude depends on the flow’s depth. But its exergy (that is the recoverable energy which is able to actually work) is equal to zero at regular conditions. After all, any volume of water is surrounded by water with the same characteristics (depth, speed, temperature). This can also be related to the air. We know that the air surrounding us has a significant amount of energy because the air has non-zero pressure and temperature. But for the same reason mentioned previously, its exergy is equal to zero and it is, therefore, useless from the energy viewpoint (later we will see that it is not useless all the time). (Brodyanskiy V.M “Exergic analysis. Energy: the problem of quality” “Nauka i Zhizn” (“Science and Life”) #3, 1982)

Now let us imagine that we are extracting part of kinetic energy from a cubic metre of water, which is flowing within a current, and use it to “move aside” the cubic metre of water that follows it (downstream). That is we will speed up the downstream cubic metre of water by slowing down the upstream volume of water. As a result, a level difference arises between them and potential energy emerges in the difference between these levels, which can be extracted from the current. The following question arises: will the amount of the extracted potential energy be more, less or equal to the energy used to speed up the second cubic metre of water – or, in other words, the energy expended to increase its kinetic energy?

Let us resort to mathematics.

As an example, we will consider a machine that is shown as a diagram on Picture 1, which makes it possible to speed up the outflowing stream of water by extracting part of the inflowing stream’s energy - that is, a machine with positive feedback between the energies of the inflowing and outflowing streams. By the way, a machine that works on this very principle has been invented. It is this machine that our story started with.

Explanations for Fig. 1:

1 - Working parts of the inflowing stream of water;

2 - Working parts of the outflowing stream of water;

3 - Working parts ensuring positive feedback between the inflowing and outflowing streams of water;

4 - Mark showing the level of the inflowing stream of water;

5 - Mark showing the level of the outflowing stream of water;

6 - Channel bed

H1 – Actual depth of the inflowing stream of water

H2 – Depth of the outflowing stream of water

V1 – Velocity of the inflowing stream of water

V2 – Velocity of the outflowing stream of water

h – Drop between the levels of the inflowing and outflowing streams of water

The device works based on the following principle:

The working parts of the inflowing stream 1 extract part of the kinetic energy from the stream and transmit it - with the help of the positive feedback 3 - to the working parts of the outflowing stream 2, which give the outflowing stream additional acceleration.

Because the amount of water entering the device is equal to the amount of outflowing water, and the speed of the outflowing stream is higher than that of the inflowing stream, then the sectional area of the outflowing stream will be less than that of the inflowing stream.

Therefore, its depth H2 will be less than the depth of the inflowing stream H1 by the value h. As a result of this, potential energy appears between the different levels of the inflowing and outflowing streams.

The device’s energy balance is as follows:

E = Ep1 + Ek1 – Ek2

The total output of energy from the device is equal to the potential energy of the difference between the marks plus the kinetic energy of the inflowing stream and minus the kinetic energy of the outflowing stream. After omitting all the computations, we have:

E = M * ( g * h + (V12 * (1 - (H1 / (H1 - h))2) / 2 )
or
E = M * ( g * H1 * (1 - V1 / V2) + (V12 - V22) / 2 ),

where M is the weight of the water entering the device in a unit of time, which is equal to the density of water multiplied by the active area of the inflowing stream and multiplied by its velocity.

Then the most interesting aspect occurs. It can be seen that the left side of the equation, which is in brackets, will increase in a linear fashion when it depends on h or in a hyperbola when it depends on V2, whereas the right part will decrease, and in a parabola at that. Which side will gain the upper hand?

Let us plot a graph showing energy’s dependence on the drop between the levels h. The graph will be plotted to show the various levels of the inflowing stream’s velocity V1 after designating it as a constant.

It is a paradox! The graph showing the energy’s dependence on the drop between the levels h has an extremum. On the rising branch of the graph, the energy balance will be positive (the power factor > 1), i.e. the extracted potential energy will be mostly expended as kinetic energy on speeding up the outflowing stream, and the device will self-accelerate until it reaches the maximum.

The energy produced by the device at this point will be several times the kinetic energy of the inflowing stream - and under certain conditions, tens and even hundreds of times!

The speed of the outflowing stream will be significantly higher (2 to 3 times as higher at times) than the speed of the inflowing stream. Therefore, the kinetic energy of the outflowing stream is 4 to 9 times the kinetic energy of the inflowing stream.

Furthermore, the graphs show that that not everything appears to be quite right with the inflowing speed. It also has an extremum. To see this better, let us plot a 3D diagram.

Isn’t it beautiful?!

This is the dependence on the outflowing speed.

And here is a full diagram for H=1.0 m,
V1 from 0 to 4.8 m/s and V2 from 0 to 5.8 m/s

However paradoxical this may seem at first glance, but the diagrams show there is an optimal speed for the inflowing stream. When it is exceeded, the device’s power capacity will sharply fall. This is due to the fact that a significant amount of energy needs to be spent on speeding up a stream that is flowing fast already.

Therefore, it can be seen that the device can create a column of water for itself and is able to extract the potential energy from an object (from a stream of water in this case) without the expenditure of external energy.

Does this not remind you of something? People who are knowledgeable about physics will immediately exclaim: “Why, this is Maxwell’s demon!” Indeed! The much-discussed Maxwell’s demon that has thus far been elusive. Many people will say that Maxwell proposed his “demon” for thermodynamics, and here you are dealing with hydrodynamics. Yes, but this does not change the essence of the matter – we can extract from an object (in this case, a flow of liquid) the potential energy that cannot be extracted in normal conditions. And we can extract it without spending anything (without even building a dam!) at that. It is true that not all of the potential energy can be extracted. Firstly, the depth of the outflowing stream is not equal to zero. Secondly, part of the potential energy extracted transforms into additional kinetic energy splashed out with this flow. This energy is actually even greater than the kinetic energy of the inflowing stream. However, this is the reward we should give the “demon” so that it agrees to work for us. As you see, the “demon” also “wants to eat”.

The question may arise: “How does the outflowing stream, which has a shallower depth, interact with the water flow around it, which has a normal constant depth?” Here we have to recall that the velocity of the outflowing stream is higher than that of the surrounding medium and this creates what is called in hydraulics “hydraulic jump”, which equalises the discrepancy between the kinetic and potential energies of the two flows. This “jump” is in essence surf, a vortex in the flow.

The conclusions to be drawn from what has been outlined above cannot be overestimated. In nature there exists a process which makes it possible to extract energy which it was impossible to extract in the past from any object - and this process has been discovered! This is the principle of positive feedback that makes it possible to transfer energy between different flows of energy sources. There is the possibility of extracting free, environmentally-pure energy from the environment, which was predicted by the great Scottish physicist James Maxwell back in 1871 in the form of a jokey demon. Maybe it was precisely because of this that it was always regarded as nothing more than a joke by the great scientist. Or is it reality indeed?

It is not quite clear yet how it works with thermodynamics and aerodynamics, but because this process exists in hydrodynamics it should also exist in any other branch of physics. There are some developments in thermodynamics and aerodynamics already. Even if this process is not found for them in the near future and it drags on for decades, then at least applying its hydrodynamic interpretation is already promising mankind huge dividends in the form of free energy and an uncontaminated atmosphere

In the next article, we will discuss what seems as the utopian idea (possibility) of using this principle of extracting energy on cars, and a hypothetical engine for them.

German  Treshchalov is a hydro-energy engineer, head of the Engineering Research Group to develop alternative sources of energy.

Copyright TiGER

01.08.06

Note: applications have been submitted to obtain international patents for the methods of extracting energy and designing devices that use this method and constructing such devices.

1. 2. N. Shchapov “Turbine Equipment for Hydropower Stations”, Gosenergoizdat, 1961
2. a web publication
3. Moscow, URSS, 2004
4. Nauka, 1974

full version of this article is here

“Sarez, Rogun, Aral...”

article is here

“Juggling” With Molecules - or “The Emperor’s New Clothes”

full version of this article is here

In the previous article , we touched upon the seemingly utopian idea of creating cars that use the operating principle described in that article - Maxwell’s demon.

Let’s make it clear from the very beginning that this has nothing to do with water and the car will use as fuel… warm air from the atmosphere. How do you like it? But is this idea that utopian?

Let us try and look into the hypothetical future.

Since we know that the air surrounding us contains a considerable amount of energy, it is quite realistic to imagine a car working literally on air. To all appearances, it will have a large air inlet to suck in warm air, and its exhaust will be… air cooled to, let’s say, minus 30 degrees, which will immediately mix with the ambient warm air and will be ready again for the operation of the car moving behind.

Curiously, these cars will automatically keep a distance between themselves because it is impossible to move in “the exhaust” of the car moving in front and they will have to wait till the “fuel mixture” becomes ready for the following car.

It is true, though, that the cars will move smoothly only in warm latitudes and in summer. As for cold latitudes, cars emitting an exhaust with a temperature of minus 70 to 80 degrees will have to be manufactured. However, roads would then have to be isolated from pedestrians. But can we not put up with this for the sake of clean air?

Under no circumstances should such a car have the usual type of engine - a heat engine. Otherwise, Carnot’s formula will devour all the energy extracted from the air and will leave nothing for Maxwell’s demon.

Is this utopia?

Let us consider everything in detail.

To start with, let us calculate how much energy is contained in the air surrounding us and see whether it will be sufficient to move a car if it is extracted from the air.

Calculation: (the calculation is approximate, only an estimate, and does not take into consideration some details such as the change in the air’s thermal capacity when the temperature changes)

The air’s thermal capacity C = 1 kJ/kg*K

Density of the air p = 1.28 kg/m3

Let us take the temperature of the ambient air as equal to 20 degrees Celsius.

Cooling 1 m3 of air by 50 degrees releases energy

E = V * p * C * T                                                                                  (1)

E =  1(m3) * 1.28 (kg/m3) * 1 (kJ/kg* K) * 50 (K) = 64 kJ                (2)

The weight of an object multiplied by its thermal capacity and multiplied by the difference between its initial and final temperature.

A car needs 250 kJ of energy (10 grams of petrol) to move 100 m at a velocity of 60 km/h (the petrol’s calorific value = 46 MJ/kg, the efficiency of the car’s internal combustion engine is 40 to 60 %).

A car with an air inlet that has an area of 0.5 m2 will pass 50m3 of air through while moving this distance. By cooling all this air by 50 degrees, it is possible to release

E = 50 (m3) * 1.28 (kg/m3) * 1 (kJ/kg * K) * 50 (K) = 3,200 kJ          (3)

As we already know, Maxwell’s demon also needs energy to work, and therefore some of this energy will have to be given to him. Some of the energy will be lost, but 3,200 – 250 = 2,950 kJ (92 %) is a huge reserve. Because there’s a huge reserve, the area of the air inlet and the exhaust temperature can be varied.

Let us say that with an air inlet with an area of 0.3 m2 (which is roughly equal to the area of the ordinary car’s radiator) and an exhaust temperature of minus 10 degrees, we will have the following amount of energy

E = 30 (m3) * 1.28 (kg/m3) * 1 (kJ/kg * K) * 30 (K) = 1,160 kJ           (4)

As you can see, the reserve of energy is still quite high.

The calculation shows, then, that if we manage to extract energy from the air, it will be quite enough to move a car.

And now to the main component of the hypothetical car – its energy device, the engine.

What kind of device should it be, to be able to take away energy from a cold body and give it to a hot one, thus violating the fundamental law of the universe – the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Does such a device exist?  Yes, as it turns out! It was invented almost 80 years ago. It is the . It was patented by French engineer Georges Ranque in 1933. Everyone apart from the very disinterested should know by now that the device does work and even generates more energy than it consumes.

It’s true, though, that so far they have managed to generate from such devices only thermal energy, which exceeds the expended energy by a factor of 1.5 to 2.

Does this mean that it violates the law of conservation of energy? For its output-input ratio calculated with the usual formula (generated energy divided by expended energy) exceeds 100 %. The output-input ratio of such machines is now cautiously called “efficiency” (even though this parameter is not the output-input ratio, in fact) to avoid coming into conflict with the fundamental laws of physics.

However, this does not change the meaning. They generate more energy than they consume, and what’s more they separate the flow of gas or liquid (the working medium (agent) for these machines) into two flows: hot and cold. It’s noteworthy that that the cold flow is colder than the initial (incoming) flow of the working agent, and the hot flow is hotter, which is, as the theory goes, what is to be supposed to be done by the oft-debated Maxwell’s demon that we have mentioned already.

Performing calculations for the machines is no trivial task, and no-one has done them with precision as yet, which is evidently the stumbling block for introducing them universally.

In this case, by the way, another interesting aspect and a reason for such insignificant use of Ranque Tube should be considered. It should be noted that this device is mostly used only as refrigerator (thermal pump). However, the majority of the users of these units have acknowledged that these machines’ efficiency is extremely low and that is why they are not often used.

Nevertheless, let us consider this aspect more attentively.

Unlike heaters, in other words, the units transforming any type of energy – electrical, chemical or kinetic, into internal energy (that is, into heat), those devices that are used to cool anything lower than the temperature of environment are heat pumps (refrigerators).

In this case, they should not be mistaken for coolers in which objects are cooled down to the environment’s temperature only by transferring heat without using external energy. These include radiators of all types, heat exchangers, cooling ponds and water cooling towers at heat power stations and so on. The only energy that is used in this case is the energy that a ventilator or a pump uses to force the circulation of cooling agent (air, water, machine oil  and etc). However, the temperature in any part of this cooler in no case drops lower than the environment’s temperature (according to the second law of thermodynamics).

In heat pumps, heat is a mandatory “co-product”, which is simply thrown out as wastes into the environment. However, we keep forgetting that this heat is energy, and by throwing it out we only decrease the unit’s efficiency (this energy is represented in the dominator of the performance index formula).

But it is indeed the main principle of refrigerating devices’ work – unless we throw out “extra” heat, we will not get the cold that we need. This energy is in no way utilized yet because, in most of the cases, it is of low-grade energy against the environment and extremely inefficient, and it is often just useless to try to utilize it with available means.

At the same time, the following fact is interesting – the more we want to cool an object, the more heat we will have to throw out, thus decreasing the device’s efficiency – this is obvious, isn’t it? In addition, if the hot air flow “thrown out” by Ranque Tube, which is used as a refrigerator, has significant pressure and speed, then it also decreases the efficiency of this kind of refrigerator.

By the way, one may think whether the term “efficiency” can be applied (in a sense to which we got used to) to heat pumps at all. The thing is the product we get from heat pumps is cold. In other words, it is the negative energy against the environment. At the same time, the efficiency, which is calculated with the standard scheme (the derived energy divided by the consumed energy), takes on negative value. In the same way, by the way, the efficiency of a heat pump, which is used as heat source, proves to be absurd. It usually becomes more than 100 %!… It depends on the type of a heat pump is being used, be it Ranque Tube, heaters using Peltier effect or any other devices.

(V.M. Brodyanksiy “Exergic analysis. Energy: the problem of quality” “Наука и Жизнь” [Science and Life] 3, 1982) (http://erg.globalnet.uz/exergy.doc)

Should one be surprised that the efficiency of this kind of refrigerator will decrease as we cool the object more and not use in any way the energy that is thrown out in the form of heat. Further, a method of using this energy to increase the efficiency of a device will be offered.

However, let’s get back to the principle of Ranque Tube.

There are many theories for these machines, explaining the reason why one flow cools down and the other heats up. One theory says that the flow heats up because of friction with the walls of the device, but that does not explain the cooling process.

Another theory explains this as an adiabatic expansion of one part of the gas and contraction of the other part, but this does not explain the appearance of additional energy.

Some theories for liquids (for water in particular) explain this as the emergence of cavitation, others as resonance, and still others as interaction between free molecules of hydrogen and oxygen that are present in water, or, on the contrary, as bond disruption.  There are even theories explaining this as extraction of energy from a “physical vacuum” that emerges while the device is working.

These effects may take place to a varying degree in Ranque’s tube even though they often come into conflict with one another.

We’d like to offer our own theory, which we think does not conflict with any of the theories described above, and which explains this effect from a single standpoint for both liquids and gases.

To do this, we will need some additional data.

The velocity of molecules of the air at 0 degrees Celsius is equal to 400 m/s. However, this is the root-mean-square velocity.

There are fast and slow molecules in any gas (in the air, in particular). Their distribution by velocity is determined by a graph – Maxwell’s distribution graph (Fig. 1). It was precisely this distribution that Maxwell used as the basis to voice his supposition about the possibility of sorting molecules using the hypothetical “demon”.

Fig. 1. Maxwell’s distribution by molecular speed

(on the X-axis – the absolute velocity of molecules, on the Y-axis – their relative quantity in a volume of gas)

Let us imagine for a minute that we have the “demon”. Let us see what he can accomplish by sorting molecules of air by velocity.

Logic suggests that we can extract the maximum amount of energy by dividing a volume of air into two parts strictly down the peak in Maxwell’s graph. The graph shows that the volume of hot air will be somewhat greater than that of cold air. It should also be noted that with such a division neither the temperature of the hot flow nor that of the cold one will have their maximum values.

To increase the temperature of the discharged hot flow, we will need to shift the dividing point (“the working point”) to the right. The shift will increase the hot flow’s temperature whereas its volume will decrease because the percentage of high-velocity molecules in it will increase but their absolute quantity will decrease. As for the discharged cold flow, its volume will increase and its temperature will also rise.

It is difficult to say what maximum temperature the discharged air flow could reach in this way. Judging by the graph, it is unlimited. But in practice, there must be a limit. All the more so as the quantity of discharged hot air will keep decreasing and it will be increasingly difficult to measure its temperature without the measurements themselves causing errors in the flow. For example, how can we possibly measure the “temperature” of the fastest molecule that we can find in the surrounding air?

If we need to lower the temperature of the discharged cold air, the “working point” will have to be moved to the left. The temperature of the discharged cold flow will thus tend towards absolute zero (-273 Celsius), while its volume will simultaneously decrease to almost zero too.

But let us return to the process of extracting the maximum energy from the air (this is what we need). The root-mean-square velocity of the molecules that have entered the hot flow will be approximately 700-800 m/s, which approximately corresponds to 500-600 degrees Celsius. In the cold flow, the speed will be approximately 200 m/s, that is a temperature of minus 100 degrees.

(These values are approximate, they may be corrected in further drafts of the article.)

Let us now consider possible processes taking place in Ranque’s tube. Let us not go into details about its design. All the more so as there are a large number of them. Let us consider it schematically, in longitudinal and cross-section.

Fig 2. Ranque’s vortex tube (scheme)

(The dotted line shows the provisional border between the tangential and axial flows; the arrows show the movement of air flows.)

An energy carrier (air hereinafter) is injected into the tube under high pressure. It will spiral along the tube’s wall, turning into the tangential flow.  Thanks to the tube’s design, the axial flow appears in the tube’s centre. It moves in the direction opposite to the tangential flow.

The ratio of the volumes of the two flows is usually 1:4, 1:2 and 2:3, depending on the initial pressure of the compressed air, its temperature and the device’s design. That is to say, there is usually more hot air than cold air. Therefore, “the working point” for sorting molecules is somewhere to the left of the middle of the graph.

What happens in the gas flows? The velocity of the flows’ motion adds to the velocity of the Brownian motion. However because on average the fast moving molecules travel greater distances than the slow-moving molecules do, the probability of them being caught in the tangential flow is higher than for slow molecules.

An example of this could be a conventional still molecule located in the centre of the axial flow. Its velocity will be set by the speed of the flow itself.  The molecule, as well as other molecules that do not wind up in the tangential flow while the axial flow moves to the exit from the device, will be discharged within the axial flow and will determine its temperature.

Let us move on. A fast molecule, once it has been caught in the tangential flow, is now even less likely to return to the axial flow because in addition to Brownian motion, it is now impacted also by the centrifugal forces that seek to move it away from the centre and thus prevent it from returning to the axial flow.

Therefore, fast molecules will accumulate in the tangential flow while slower molecules will stay in the axial flow. Due to this, the average velocity of the molecules in the tangential flow will be higher than that of the incoming air and, therefore its temperature will be higher while the opposite will be true for the axial flow.

However, the linear velocity of molecules cannot be used in the calculations for such devices. It is necessary to use for these purposes the speed of diffusion, which is considerably less than the average velocity of the molecules. But this does not impact the principle of sorting molecules by velocity. And the high-velocity molecules are still more likely to get into the tangential flow than low-velocity molecules are.

Well then? We have learned how to extract energy from the air. But our energy device seems to lack something… This is what it lacks. The device consumes external energy – compressed air. But because more energy is produced at the exit, why not return part of the energy to the entry point, thus ensuring feedback between the flows of the energy carrier?

How? Simply by returning part or all of the hot flow back into the compressor (Fig. 3).  This will increase the pressure and temperature of the incoming compressed air and, therefore, will increase the tangential speed and the molecule-sorting effect.

Fig. 3

It should be remembered that besides the compressor must receive air from the atmosphere because that is where we remove the energy  from. In addition, no losses of heat (energy) should occur in the compressor, i.e. the air compression should be adiabatic. Due to this, the air may heat up to significant values (500-1,000 degrees Celsius). But the temperature of the fuel mixture in the cylinders of the ordinary car engine is also about 800 degrees Celsius.

How to take away the excess energy to move the car? By using the difference between the temperatures of the hot and cold flows to work a thermal machine? Under no circumstances! Otherwise Carnot’s formula will “eat up” all the energy that was extracted with such great difficulty.

One possible way of removing energy is to install a turbine somewhere on the periphery of the tangential flow. It will simultaneously feed both the car engine and the compressor. With efficient feedback, the speed of the tangential flow will be sufficiently high to cover all of the machine’s energy expenditure.  After being processed in the turbine, the tangential flow should have a lower speed, low pressure and lowered temperature.

And now look here …

Fig. 4

Here it  is – Maxwell’s demon in the purest form, as created by the nature itself!

Let us look at the tornado. The quantity of energy in the planet’s noosphere is always practically constant. However, clusters of energy (whirlwinds, tornadoes, typhoons) appear in it all the time. A tornado “pumps out” energy from the surrounding air, which has greater entropy than the tornado itself, and decreases the entropy inside itself! Who can argue with this?

It remains a mystery how under such circumstances one could possibly conclude that entropy always grows. But this is the Second Law of Thermodynamics – the Emperor of all of the laws of physics, which has set the direction of developing energy engineering on the planet for almost a century and a half!

Because the authority of the scientists who formulated this law is extremely great, thus far no-one has had the courage to say: “ But the Emperor has no clothes on! ”.

The similarity between the tornado and Ranque’s tube is almost complete. The middle of the tornado, its “eye”, cools down considerably with a considerable drop of pressure inside it. There appears an ascending flow, which is directed upwards from the earth’s surface. The tornado receives additional energy from the near-surface air sucked in at its base.

And how do you like this one?  Is this just coincidence, isn’t  it ?

Fig. 5

Spiral, whirlwind, cyclone, a tornado – SPINNING – this is the very essence of the indefinite existence of the Universe!

Spinning can start from anything whatsoever, from the spinning of the Earth on its axis, its spinning around the Sun, the Sun’s spinning around the centre of the Galaxy, etc.

This effect of energy redistribution manifests itself at any speed of spirally-twisted matter. It increases to a greater degree when the speed increases. After one  vortex  breaks up, another one appears, which again redistributes all the energy, and so on ad infinitum.

In the next article we will reveal how the “demon” turns into an “angel”.

German V. Treshchalov  is the head of the ERG engineering research group that develops alternatives sources of energy.

Copyright TiGER                                       20.09.06

Note:
1.   All of the above calculations have been made for an ideal gas.
2.   This article may not be republished for commercial purposes without the author's prior consent.

Bibliography:

1. a web publication
2. Moscow, URSS, 2004
3. Nauka, 1974.
4. B.M. Yavorskiy, A. A. Detlaf, “Reference Book on Physics”. Publisher:   Nauka. The main editorial office on physics and mathematics literature,    Moscow, 1979.