Jones, your musings prompted the following idea here: 1/ There exist well known mechanical-to-heat converters with a COP>3, namely heat pumps used for heating purposes sucking the heat from ambient air: you get 3 to 4 times more heat out than the energy you have put in (probably much more since the figure I am quoting includes the sub-unity electrical-to-mechanical conversion efficiency of the heat pump's electric motor, of which we would have no need). Let's call such a device's efficiency COP1, with COP1 > 3 (conservative)
2/ As you say there exist heat-to-mechanical converters with an efficiency well over 40%. Let's call such a device's efficiency COP2, with COP2 > 0.4 (conservative again) 3/ Now if we drive a device of type 1 using a device of type 2, the combination's efficiency will be: COP2*COP1 > 0.4*3 = 1.2 > 1 right? So we can close the loop, mechanical-to-heat-to mechanical, with excess energy to power the car or whatever. Right? :) Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 10:14 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: High efficiency electrolysis > Ron, > >> but lets assume I can provide Hydrogen from water in excess of COP>1. Now >> what are we going to do with it >> where the conversion does not eat up this gain? ICE engine is out! > > I may have to disagree on this point, as I am optimistically looking for > continued advances on several fronts. Yes, fuel cells are out. Huge > drain of time and effort. > > But ... both Ford and BMW have puts tons of money and man-hours into > improving the H2 fueled ICE. They are not there yet but they can get a > Carnot efficiency of 45% at single engine speed. BMW has gotten over 50%. > > Now at first blush - this looks to be of no great help because you would > need COP>3 or closer to 4 to get anything useful ... even with a (much) > larger engine to cover the parasitism ... but there are wildcards which > built on the 55% waste heat of those ICE's: > > 1) thermo-electro-chemical water splitting > 2) thermoelectric water radiolysis > > I don't see either getting close to COP>3 (compared to Faradaic) but... > > 3) either of the above, using LENR (perhaps Mizuno arc) techniques to > provide more energy, and with or without ... > > 4) turbine/ICE dual engines where split cell water splitting is > engineered so that peroxide is produced preferentially (instead of O2) > and enriched in situ for use as a monopropellant in the turbine, while > the H2 is burned in the ICE (or in a second stage tubine). > > All of these concepts are using waste heat, but realistically, unless > the hydrino, LENR (or something unknown like the Graneau hypothesis) is > also at work, and that extra energy can be harnessed as well, then this > won't happen. Thermacore and Mizuno presents a good case that it can be > done, in principle. But that is a far, far way from doing it now. > > At this point in time (terrorism concern) radiolysis is out for an > automobile, but maybe not for a longer time horizon. > > The main point is that the USA should be putting the equivalent of the > hot fusion budget into this! (including $$$ into your work) > > Jones >
