OK thanks Jones, Ron et al. I could have gone on and on like this, describing encouraging experimental results maybe, raising millions perhaps, but I'll put an end to my little joke, which was in reality a challenge to the group's thermodynamics skills, nothing against the two of you as I hope you will understand.
My scheme simply can NOT work as I realized before I even posted it, because the absolute max efficiency of a heat pump, which depends only on the absolute temperatures of the hot and cold sources, is exactly equal to one over the absolute max efficiency of a heat engine working with the same temperature sources (the formulae derive from the W and Q formula Ron gave), so that if you increase one you decrease the other, and when you multiply the two the very best you can get is a global COP of... 1. ;-( It's all in the wikipedia articles 'heat pump' and 'heat engine', nothing arcane. Anyway like Steven said working on a defective scheme is a valuable educational experience, I learnt e.g. that: - One can't go around multiplying airily the best efficiencies one finds in the literature to make a loop overunity, it's more complex than that. - COPs of the order of 10 _can_ be obtained from such mundane things as residential heat pumps. Maybe this innocent hoax will preserve some here against less innocent ones? I haven't much hope in this respect though. My apologies if I have given false hopes or hurt anybody in any way. Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 6:02 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Loop closed? (was Re: High efficiency electrolysis) > Ron, > >> For example the Jandy Model AE 2500 claims COP 5.4, while the Ice Breaker >> Model H100R is rated at 5.6 and its big brother at 6.1, or >> http://www.sortprice.com/search-CQ-Pool_and_Spa-Heat_Pump which all have >> claims of COP's that are higher. > > Wow, I had no idea that they were getting that kind of performance. > >> I do realize in the application being discussed that ( W/Qh = Qh-Qc/Qh ) >> would apply. > > Yes. Now we need to locate that elusive Stirling. BTW, an exciting > subset of the Stirling is the thermoacoustic Stirling. NASA and LANL > have been involved, and one suspects that the cutting-edge of > thermoacoustic conversion has gone beyond what they are admitting to, in > public: > > http://www.lanl.gov/mst/engine/ > > Jones >
