He was just as wrong about thermodynamics as he was about the viability of airplanes.
So the carnot engine and it's reverse action -> the refrigeration cycle prove Newtons laws of motion to be correct no matter how much Lord Kelvin or any other scientist desperately wants them to be wrong.
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
So when you try to run an engine off of a heat differential, that heat differential is only cappable of transferring a percentage of the available power from heat energy to mechanical motion because of the relationship between heat and pressure.
When you reverse the heat engine by applying the pressure instead of the heat, you get the refrigeration cycle where the ammount of heat energy that moves is a multiple more than the compression energy.
For example, if a stirling engine (a type of carnot engine) is 50% efficient running off of a heat differential, it will be 200% efficient in creating that same heat differential. Since most engineering and science professors are dogmatic unqestioning followers of Lord Kelvin, this causes mental dissonance and in order to deal with the conflict of evidence and belief, they decided to call 200% efficient COP 2.0.
Seriously, you can go to Wal-Mart and buy window mount ac units with COPs of like 2.5. But cognitive dissonance prevents the larger community from recognising this as a proof of free energy.
Once you understand why an air conditioner works this way with heat, you can look to do the same for other energy types:
Mass energy cannot be created or destroyed, but potential energy is the plaything of the clever engineer. You don't need to CREATE energy if you can make it FLOW BACKWARDS with a COP.
I'm sure hooking two stirling engines together such that the first takes a heat differential and produces motion and that motion drives a second stirling engine to create a heat differential twice as large as the first and can thus drive the first is very simple to demonstrate.
You can buy a pair of very well engineered stirling engines for less than $500, create your experiment and recover your investment generating infinite electricity and selling it to the grid.
I look forward to seeing your photo on a bed of dollar bills.
no, it's a cycle with x efficiency in one dirrection and x^-1 in the other direction. You have to choose a cycle and direction where the energy output is advantageous.
You could, however, store and release energy from heat batteries like this. You would still have mechanical losses on store and release, but you could do it.
What you proposed is akin to spinning an alternator with an electric motor: You can't create mass-energy.
Potential energy is different, low energy reversible state changes can cause drastic potential energy transformations.
you're claiming "50% efficient running off of a heat differential, it will be 200% efficient in creating that same heat differential."
now, even if it's 101% efficient you can carry out the experiment as i described
Energy (Greek; work) implies internal/inherent power aka exerting force aka whole generator (balance) for each partial reactor (free will of choice) within.
Free implies center of surrounding energy.
...implies a conflict of reason (right vs wrong) shaped by ones consent to the suggestion of another. If ones "free" will of choice ignores perceivable balance of "energy"; then one imbalances self.
This self imposed imbalance is being suggested by a few towards a many as "reason/logic" and consenting to it tricks one to view balance through the lens of imbalance.
Action (inception towards death) generates reactions (life). Reverse implies ones REsponse to suggested VERSEs by another, hence establishing VERSE, noun (Latin versus; verto, to turn) aka a turning against one another within conflicts of reason.
a) suggested newtonianism tempts one to ignore perceivable...now (not new) and momentum (not ton aka gravitational weight).
Choice (life) can only exist within momentum (inception towards death) of motion...not before or after. While alive; one cannot perceive ones inception or death only the perceivable momentum aka moment aka "now".
b) suggested laws tempt one to ignore perceivable natural L(and) A(ir) W(ater) aka the land for choice to balance on; the air for one to breathe and the solid (life) within fluid (inception towards death) for ones momentary existence.
c) suggested "First, Second and Third" tempts one to ignore that all is one in energy, hence whole (oneness) generating internal/inherent partials (ones).
Sleight of hand: "all for one and one for all" or "there can be only one" or "alone" aka ALL(in)ONE.
Also suggested names and numbers tempt one to ignore NUM'BER, noun (nombre; name) - "the designation of a unit" aka UNIT; noun (Latin unitas; unus) - "one".
d) Newton's First Law of Motion states that an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless an external force acts upon it
Motion implies external for internal momentum...being alive implies within momentum (inception towards death) of motion aka temporary growth within ongoing loss aka force of velocity generating force of resistance.
In short...being implies "subjected" to being within objectification.
e) Newton's Second Law of Motion states that when a force acts on an object, it will cause the object to accelerate
Will cannot cause, since free "will" of choice is caused within balance (momentum of motion). Will implies effect within cause. Velocity (loss) generates resistance (growth); resistance (need) struggles for self sustenance within velocity (want) aka ones "free" will of choice within the dom-inance of balance (need/want) aka free-dom.
Free (life) within dominance (inception towards death).
Motion doesn't accelerate matter; matter (resistance) rises (inception) and falls (death) within motion (velocity)...it's ones free will of choice how slow one rises or how quick one falls.
a) there can be only one action (whole) for each ones reaction (partial) within.
b) being implies different (reaction) within same (action)...others suggest equality (same) through diversity (different) as the inversion thereof.
c) reaction implies RE (response to) TION (acted upon)...re (reaction) implies center of surrounding tion (action).
d) suggested oppositionism (counterbalance) tempts one to ignore being choice within balance. Others suggest one to choose sides (want or not want); which when consented to, tempts one to imbalance (want vs not want) ones position as choice in-between balance (need/want).
...one consented to "stand under" the suggestions of another, hence willingly repressing ones expression, while permitting others to oppress self through the suggested.