I Energy Conversion With Supercritical Fluids

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the conversion of thermal energy into kinetic energy using supercritical fluids, specifically CO2 in a closed figure-8 system. The idea is to manipulate temperature and pressure to induce a supercritical state, allowing for energy transfer through thermal changes. Participants debate the potential for achieving high molecular velocities within this system, questioning the frictionless nature of supercritical fluids and the conditions necessary for such velocities. Clarifications are made regarding the differences between supercritical fluids and superfluids, emphasizing that the behavior of supercritical fluids does not equate to zero viscosity. Ultimately, a referenced paper is suggested as a resource for further understanding the dynamics of supercritical fluids in this context.
Benign Paradigm
Messages
3
Reaction score
1
sc.png



Technically, this isn't a question concerning supercritical fluids. It's more about converting thermal energy into velocity by playing "keep-away" with molecules that want to go supercritical.

The idea is simple. In an fully contained system, we can more or less say volume is static. Temperature becomes what determines both pressure and state of matter once we have that system of static volume. We can now simulate the introduction and removal of thermal energy.

Let's say our system is a figure-8 loop and contains CO2 at the right pressure to invoke a super-critical state relatively near to ambient external temperatures. We can now introduce a low-energy heat source to generate a state change with relative ease. As the CO2 begins to go supercritical, we can introduce a low-energy source of cooling to from outside of this closed system, as well.

What I'd like to know is how to describe the transfer of this energy. It seems to me, that an unnaturally large portion of the thermal energy we introduce will be converted directly into kinetic energy until it leaves the system as thermal energy again on the "cooling side" of our figure-8.

I'm trying to determine the potential velocity of molecules within this system, based on the differential between my source of heat and my heat absorption. I'm just not sure exactly how to go about such a thing. Supercritical fluids are purportedly frictionless, but a system that is very nearly supercritical should be very nearly frictionless correct?

If that's the case, shouldn't it be hypothetically possible to generate extreme velocities within this system by increasing both the heat source and heat absorption rates to high levels?

And if so, how do we trend these rates to accurately achieve a desired velocity?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Benign Paradigm said:
Supercritical fluids are purportedly frictionless, but a system that is very nearly supercritical should be very nearly frictionless correct?
In a word? "No."
 
Bystander said:
In a word? "No."
My understanding was that matter in the containment will reach greater velocities than it normally would, if the rest of the volume is near to reaching a supercritical state.

Judging by the simplicity of your answer, am I to assume that I'm completely wrong?
 
You have confused "supercritical" with "superfluid," as in He II is a low/zero viscosity "superfluid."
 
I see. I was taught that an entire volume must be undergo the change to a super-critical state in order for the super-critical fluid to be relaxed. For that reason, I drew a parallel to super fluids. I was with the impression that matter undergoing the change to a super-critical state would increase in velocity to transfer heat out of the volume by exhibiting the same defiance of friction.

I think I found a paper that'll adequately answer my mangled question. Maybe you'll be interested.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pierre_Carles3/publication/235528431_Relaxation_of_a_supercritical_fluid_after_a_heat_pulse_in_the_absence_of_gravity_effects_Theory_and_experiments/links/00b49537191b169ed3000000.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes Bystander
Thankee.
 
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
Back
Top