Michel Jullian wrote: > 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
Michel why don't you offer your services to James Randi? Harry
