It is not my intent to prevent use of ECATs in the world. I would love to see them and their kin everywhere, saving the environment and hopefully money at the same time. On many occasions I have pleaded with Rossi to work hard in an effort to increase the COP that he specifies so that cost comparison to heat pumps or natural gas or any other heating system becomes moot. Thus far he has stuck to his guns, but I think it is only a matter of time and engineering before that obstacle is overcome.
The reference to heat pumps was brought up just as a numerical comparison which seems to be a relatively simple way to estimate the COP that should be exhibited by a new LENR system that is capable of generating electrical power that exceeds its own input requirements. I was thinking of the heat pumping process as a Carnot cycle engine in reverse. Take the numbers I calculated in the below listing as my example. A perfect heat pump that takes an input of 30 C and outputs its heat product at 120 C has a Carnot limit of 4.4. Maybe I have oversimplified the estimating by assuming that the best that can be achieved by the reverse device would be 1/4.4 or .227 times the heat pumped for generated electrical power when the input source is at the 120 C temperature and its sink at 30 C as before. If we add a little inefficiency to the generation process, we might expect the net output to be less. Unless this technique is woefully incorrect in prediction, which it might be, then a LENR device with an equivalent COP of 6 would be on shaky ground if it is expected to generate its own electrical input. This is where an expert in power generation would come in handy to clarify my misunderstanding. I have heard loud and clear that an LENR device that runs in the self sustaining mode need not generate electrical power for its input as it produces heat energy indefinitely. I am thinking of one that actually needs electrical input power and then is capable of self generating that same input plus excess electrical power for other uses. This type of system will no doubt become the real winner in the future. One way to consider the near self sustaining operation is to realize that the COP in that condition can be made to approach infinity as the thermal feedback is enhanced. Increase the thermal coupling to the core and get a higher overall COP as long as you maintain safe control. Now use the Carnot rule of thumb above and you see that a far less effecient heat engine is required for the generation of input drive power. Problem solved. Your calculations of the natural gas system as compared to the present ECAT would definitely suggest that gas would be best for today. We should give Rossi some time to improve his COP since this is version 1.0 and I believe that the improvements will come quickly until the input electrical requirement is of little concern. The marketplace should drive LENR systems in the desired direction, but it may take a little time. It is apparent that the current lowest cost heat pumps are not very good with an efficiency of only 50% as you point out. But engineers start at that level of performance and ask themselves why this is the case. Very few would accept a loss of 50% without a little fight. Perhaps the current management of their companies beat them into submission at that level since it is marketable at the moment. All we need is for the government agencies to dictate better devices and they appear. Maybe they cost a bit more, but the environment is important as well. For this reason, the 50% rule of thumb will most likely become history very shortly. If there is not a law of physics or thermodynamics that prevents us from reaching say 90% efficiency, then we should be thinking more of the Carnot limit. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Not Me <energya...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sun, Mar 25, 2012 8:02 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims Perhaps instead of practical I should have said economical. You were the one who started comparing the overall energy efficiency of the E-Cat to heat pumps anyone could buy today. As the E-Cat is targeted to the residential market, it should only be compared to residential market heat pumps. If you look at what's actually available on the market, for example, http://www.lennox.com/products/heat-pumps/ you see the best HSPF rating is 9.5. This is a measure of the average efficiency over a heating season. An HSPF of 9.5 means if the heat pump produces 100,000,000 BTUs of heat, it will consume 10,500 kWh of electricity. 100,000,000 BTUs is equal to 28,500 kWh. Consuming 10,500 kWh while producing 28,500 kWh gives a COP of 2.7. Keep in mind, this is for the best, most efficient, most expensive heat pump available from this company for the residential market. For a heat pump at the minimum HSPF rating of 7.7 that can be sold, which is closer to what constitutes the majority of the market, the COP is 2.2. Gee, that's about half of 4.5. Sure, geothermal systems can achieve higher COPs in limited circumstances, but have you ever looked at the prices. Compared to a possibly theoretical E-Cat at $1,000 which heats water to over 80 deg. C, you're more likely to spend $40,000 for something that can't produce heat over 50 deg. C. The output of the heat pump will not be hot enough for radiators or hot water coils in an air handler, or to heat domestic hot water. A better argument against the E-Cat as an efficient produces of heat for the home would be to compare it to natural gas. Our standard electric rate is $.13 per kWh. We get natural gas at $.84 per therm (100,000 BTU). A therm is equivalent to 29.3 kWh, so a kWh of heat from natural gas costs $.029 (4.5 times better than electricity), while a kWh of heat from an E-Cat at a COP of 6 would cost $.022, which is just barely better. No ones going to be ripping out a functioning boiler and replacing it with a couple E-Cats if they can do simple math. In our case, the only way the E-Cat would make sense economically would be to switch to time of day electric rates, at $.05 off peak and $.25 on peak, and use the E-Cat to produce heat during off peak hours at an effective cost of $.008 per kWh, and use gas for heat during on peak hours. On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 2:50 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: I am not sure what your observations are Not Me. Do you know of a heat pump that has a COP of 4.5/2 when having a source of input at 30 C while putting out heat at 120 C? According to wikipedia I calculate COP(heating)=T(hot)/(T(hot)-T(cool))=4.4 as the Carnot limit. This is using their equation just ahead of the table of various performances. Wikipedia discusses an example of a geothermal application using buried coils where the source is at 10 C in the UK for a home system that usually displays a COP of 4 to 5. Please review that article and let me know if you still think the COP would be 4.5/2 under those standard home conditions. Not Me, your assumption of 50% efficiency for the heat pump relative to Carnot appears low. How did you acquire your estimate? The article in Wikipedia discusses the fact that current heat pumps are in the range you suggest but that future developments will improve them significantly as the cost of input energy rises. They imply that the best designs will approach the Carnot limit. Maybe we need to understand why the present devices are so poorly performing before we assume that the best we can achieve is 50% efficiency. I am hoping for inputs from experts in the chemical industry that use equipment which transfers excess heat from exhaust processes to areas that need preheating. It should be common practice to save expensive heating costs by using waste heat in this manner. Perhaps petroleum engineers are aware of high temperature heat pump systems and it would be enlightening for them to bring these into the discussion. I am very curious about the active fluids and systems required. Would it be possible for us to limit this discussion to high temperature heat pumps and not refer to LENR devices? Perhaps the name should be modified to pertain more to the subject at hand? Dave -----Original Message----- From: Not Me <energya...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sat, Mar 24, 2012 11:15 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims I'd like more information on this alleged heat pump which could heat water to 90 deg. C with a COP 6 in conditions that exist in a usual residential setting, such as an ambient air temperature of 10 deg. C. The Carnot limit in these conditions is 4.5. Any practical heat pump in these conditions will have a COP of no more than half that. To heat water to 90 deg. C with a COP of 6 requires a cool sink that is no less than 60 deg. C.
