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