Storing Cookies (See : ) help us to bring you our services at . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)  (Read 87259 times)


  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
« Reply #75 on: January 25, 2010, 05:00:03 AM »
Hi everybody (and ATT if you're still watching this tread), I must admit that I didn't perfectly understand the heat pump cycle when I first started this tread, and only recently grasped the core concept.

I thought that from what I had read at wikipedia, that the primery operation of the common heat pump was to compress and expand the working refigerant so that the temperature would then increase and decrease, and cause a following emmision and absorbation of temperature to its external environment.

But this is not the real reason to why it works so well, and even though someone on this tread mentioned it rougly well (I think it was angryscientist), I still had to ask a guy who knew it spesifically to understand it.

So yes, it is all about phase change, meaning in this case the change from liquid to gas and back again. And the "secret" of the heat pump is that the refigerant needs very little change in its pressure to do this. This also means that a theoretically high COP system needs a refigerant which is very close to evaporation and condensation pressure at all times, meaning that very little effort is needed to compress it into a liquid.

Also, all heat pumps should have been equipped with an slightly geared up turbine instead of a expansion valve, which wastes all the energy which the compressor generates when it creates high pressure air. There is actually (at least theoretically) a possibility to recover most of that energy used to compress the gass this way, but again losses of all sorts will make it less than what was originally expended.

Thinking in terms of phase change, it also intruiged and made me wonder if the opposite operation would be possible to solve the problem of creating mechanical work from heat, efficiently...
What if we had another system "thermally connected" to the heat pump, which used a refigerant which experienced a phase change in the temperature region between the hot and cold side of the heat pump?

We could then use that sudden hundredfold increase (and decrease) in volume to power mechanical pistons. These would then set a shaft in motion and allow us create useful work.

Could this be possible, in just the same way as the phase change in heat pumps is exploited to trick heat into flowing from cold to hotter, which could never happen without its interferrence?


Unfortunately there is no way to make the engine part of any device more efficient than %100. There is a way to exploit a phase change in an engine to make it more efficient. I brought it up in the following link to the thread. It's not exactly the same as the heat pump but it is pretty close. I got exited when I heard about it.

Sorry about not explaining well. I try to get every word to mean something. I like it brief and to the point. I guess some times I may be a little too brief.


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2528
Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
« Reply #76 on: January 25, 2010, 11:57:40 PM »
    The device I am describing is basically a thermometer but you can stick it in the sun paint the bulb black and have it blow it's lid.  It does not work on latent heat principles.  It works like a steam engine but at greatly reduced temperature.  This way the heat is flowing into the system instead of out.  It is not a Stirling engine either.  The restorative force is the mass of the piston.


  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 310
    • Naboo's homepage
Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
« Reply #77 on: April 12, 2010, 07:08:47 PM »
Hey, sorry for the delayed response...

Sparks, how exactly is the piston supposed to use the heat in its water bath, or just regular sunlight?

Normally, the heat is supposed to be dispersed in a sink, thus giving a repeatable motion but also loss. I can see how there could be a harmonic motion because of the heat/pressure push, and then a low pressure pull combined with the frequency determined by the momentum of the piston, just like a spring.

Or, maybe the heat is supposed to leak out from the cylinder wall above water, which would turn it into a stirling engine?



  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1377
Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
« Reply #78 on: April 12, 2010, 08:22:20 PM »
I think the argument earilier in this thread has this solution. The Carnot
inefficiency of a heat engine...Is the maximum potential efficiency gain
of a Carnot heat pump. The heat pump cannot create temperature over
a volume of working fluid higher then the ineffciency of the heat engine
using that same volume of working fluid. A heat pump can create higher
temperatures but over a smaller volume of working fluid. You can also
use enviromental heat, lets say of a ground loop thermal system that
uses the ground collection of energy with a heat pump the same way
as using a solar pannel to collect solar energy directly.



  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2528
Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
« Reply #79 on: April 13, 2010, 03:09:52 AM »
    The unit I describe works above the boiling point of the refridgerant at all times.  It works on the pressure gain as the bulb is heated.   As the bulb pressure overcomes the weight of the piston the clamping mechanism is released.  This allows for a rapid expansion of the gas while the magnetic piston is forced through the load coils.    The expanding gas will convey it's kinetic energy to the piston and electrical load.  The gas pressure is now less as well as it's temperature.  Because of the heat lag of the bulb walls the weight of the piston compresses the cooled gas and the locking mechanism engages.  The bulb walls saturate or heat soak and the gas pressure increases.  Most heat exchangers use very thin walls so the exchanger will respond rapidly to any change in temperature on either side of the exchanger.  This is good when a fluid changes in heat load and an overshoot of the temperature and pressure due to the heat transport time through the exchanger would be detrimental.  In the case in question as wide a swing as possible in the working fluid pressure is sought.  Active management of the exchanger could also be used where just before release of the piston fluid is drained from a double wall exchanger.  This disrupts the flow of heat into the system while the gas is allowed to expand on unleashing the piston.   Gravity on the piston recompresses the cooled gas and allows the piston to return to the locked position.  The warm fluid is then returned to the cavity between the heat scource wall and the gas well wall and thermal energy is allowed to flow into the gas through the fluid again repeating the cycle.  I am probably reinventing the Stirling engine but the engine I describe is more of a pulsed output with gravity instead of a heatsink involved. 

Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
« Reply #80 on: September 19, 2012, 09:39:36 PM »
This thread seems to have run out of steam some years ago and I don't know if the original poster is still around (Nabo00o) but I find the topic and discussion very interesting.

I think what Nabo00o was driving at is something like this, put in terms that might be easier to understand or follow than the complexities of "COP" heat pump efficiency calculations and such.

If you dump a truckload of dirt on the ground. (call ground level the "baseline"). You raise the baseline by whatever feet. Now you can roll a ball down this hill and have it impact something, like a paddle wheel or whatever and extract some energy in one way or another from the "potential" created. That is, by dumping the dirt and making a hill you have raised the baseline and can then extract X amount of energy.

So, what if, instead of dumping dirt from a dump truck to make this hill to raise the baseline we use a backhoe ?

Now, theoretically, for the same energy output to raise the baseline to make our hill we also have a hole beside the hill. Now we can put our paddle wheel in the hole, roll our ball down the hill - into the hole and get 2X energy output.

Under normal circumstances a heat pump raises or lowers temperatures from an ambient baseline. All that is generally considered when determining efficiency is the degree of heat or cold above or below this baseline.

A heat pump, air conditioner, refrigerator etc. all use the same basic principle and all almost always waste either the heat or the cold.

To air condition your house you save the cold produced and throw away all the heat produced. Generally you just want to get somewhere above or below the baseline and don't care about or don't intend to utilize the hole that has been dug to make the hill or the hill that has been created to make the hole.

There is something not quite right about this illustration, but the idea is that if you MOVE heat or concentrate it with a heat pump you simultaneously dig a "cold hole", assuming the place from which the heat was taken is well insulated.

A refrigerator doesn't just produce cold it also produces heat. The coils on the back of the refrigerator get hot, but for refrigeration this heat is unneeded and unwanted and generally ignored or discounted. It is a "waste product" of the refrigerator. The heat coming from the back of the refrigerator is coming out of the insulated box inside the refrigerator. The insulated box inside the refrigerator is your HOLE. The HOT condenser coils on the back of the refrigerator constitute your HILL.

I think the point Nabo00o was trying to make is that a Stirling engine runs on a temperature differential so instead of just utilizing the temperature above or below the baseline it can very well utilize both. Not just roll your ball down the hill but roll it all the way down the hill and into the hole. By using X amount of energy to make a hill you can get back 2X by also utilizing the hole that was inadvertently created to make the hill.

Now if the balls you are rolling down the hill are really Ambient Heat, then you can roll them down the hill and into the hole all day and never run out of "fuel". The problem is that eventually your hole will get filled up to overflowing. Or will it ?

According to this article by Tesla:

No, you won't fill up the hole because, when you roll the balls down the hill your Heat engine/electric generator at the bottom of the hole converts the heat into another form of energy - electricity, which can easily be gotten out of the hole through some wires. Given a constant supply of heat (Ambient), once you have first dug your "cold hole" you have a constant supply of heat flowing into it. If that heat is converted to electricity the "cold hole" never warms up and the energy supply is never depleted (until the sun burns out).

Of course a Stirling engine generator is not 100% efficient at converting heat into  electricity so the "cold hole" will eventually warm up, but Tesla believed that it would take less energy to remove whatever heat is not converted than what is gained.

In other words, a Heat Pump would only have to move or remove a fraction of the heat entering the hole, the bulk of the heat (hopefully) being converted to another form of energy.

Having said all that, apparently Tesla spent many years actually working on such a device but never brought it to completion (as far as I know) and if it were really all that simple why hasn't anyone done it yet or why hasn't anyone tried it.

Strange as it seems, search as I might on the internet, considering all the tinkerers and dabblers in alternative and "free" energy and such, I am hard pressed to find anyone reporting on their efforts to couple a heat pump with a Stirling Engine. No failures, no attempts to try it and see if it works. This seems rather strange as how difficult could it be ?

On the other hand, both Stirling Engine and Refrigeration are rather specialized esoteric subjects. How either one actually works is more or less a mystery to most people. But I would think that somebody would have at least tried and failed and reported on the failure or something but for the most part all I find is speculation such as this thread.


  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
« Reply #81 on: December 26, 2012, 02:43:15 PM »
My attempt to build a working stirling was frustrated by not knowing enough to make it work correctly. The symbiotic systems are complimentary. There are three technologies: stirling, steam, TEM.  Does a stirling's working fluid undergo phase change? I believe, by definition, this would not be a stirling anymore, thus, undefined technology.

Continued collaboration is of interest.

This is a great thread! Some of the posts show a great level of understanding. I have spent many hours in deep study of heat pump dynamics. I have developed a question, a thought experiment, to get the grey masses moving:

In regards to the thermal potential (note there is pressure potential also) resulting from compressing the working fluid (refrigerant) - is this potential realized only when it affects the environment through the exchanger or does it exist prior to being applied to the environment through the exchanger? (The same question applies to the thermal potential created on expansion through the valve.)

This is open for discussion.
The reader that begins to question the magnitude of that potential and it's creation and existence is in for an awakening and a new world.

Other questions to ponder:

What happens to COP when the air exchangers become liquid exchangers?
Can the thermal potentials be applied directly to a symbiotic system? (What happens to primary system COP when you do?)

Russell Philips

Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
« Reply #82 on: December 27, 2012, 12:46:08 AM »
It would not be that difficult , but it would not be any use. Thermodynamics puts limits on the efficiency of operating a heat cycle in either direction, e.g. taking in work and moving heat or moving heat and producing work. Those limits guarantee such a device could not produce any net work, as we would expect if the law of conservation of energy is considered.

That is your opinion, based on false reasoning. Unfortunately this idea is so prevalent it tends to discourage anyone from even making the attempt.

There is no violation in the law of conservation of energy in moving heat from one place where it is of no use to another place where it can be utilized to perform useful work.


  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
« Reply #83 on: December 27, 2012, 06:37:36 AM »
The scientific method is how theories become law. It is understood that if we discover validated discrepancies, law must give way to new theories and the scientific method again is diligently applied.

It appears that a wider perspective is in order to explain the higher COP's of the heatpump.

I have heard the argument that heat being moved is not in violation of thermodynamics. I was satisfied with this explanation until I realized that the thermal spikes above and below the ambient are in fact created and exist. They are created within the system and applied to the environment through the respective air exchangers as is common.

Because they exist independent of the exchangers - thus, a system designer, may elect to apply them to air exchangers (amazing), liquid exchangers (unbelievable COP's), self-exchange (nullifying the thermal potentials), or direct exchange via a symbiotic system or other device. The choice is up to wise design.

This is new information. Do not reject it, or dismiss it. It is worthy of inspection and discussion.


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1336

Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
« Reply #85 on: December 27, 2012, 06:20:47 PM »
No false reasoning here. It is not possible to combine a heat engine and heat pump together and produce usable output work. If you think there is a way then you don't have any appreciation of either energy  conservation laws or thermodynamics.

I do think that there May Be a way. The way that Tesla described quite lucidly and convincingly IMO. But this is not the way most people would go about it. That is, using the heat pump to concentrate heat to run a heat engine. I think that that would indeed be futile.

With a vast reservoir of Ambient heat available the problem is not moving heat to where it can be used so much as getting rid of the over abundance of excess heat.

In other words if you first use the heat pump to throw off heat so as to create a "sink" then run your heat engine on ambient heat, and the heat engine is converting that heat as it comes in then the "sink" once established is maintained.

You say this can't work because it is impossible to run a heat engine without dumping heat into the sink. I disagree. It seems that it is possible to convert ambient heat into electricity on a nano-scale. I'm not so sure it is impossible on a macro scale. Keeping something cold doesn’t require an input of energy, just some really good insulation to keep the heat OUT. If heat is absorbed and converted into electricity the end result is a drop in temperature - COLD.

Therefore your heat engine should be able to run continuously on ambient heat without dumping that heat into the insulated cold sink as the heat is being converted to electricity. Your heat pump would have very little if any work to do. It could be run intermittently if necessary as no insulation is perfect at keeping out heat and no heat engine is perfect at converting heat to electricity.

This is not a closed loop. It is an open system.

Heat In > > Electricity Out.

If its possible its possible, and apparently it is possible:


  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
« Reply #86 on: December 27, 2012, 06:29:03 PM »
Is the scientific method absolute rubbish?

Average air conditioners are 3.5 COP, is this absolute rubbish?

Increasing exchanger size increases COP, is this absolute rubbish?

Liquid exchange increases COP, is this absolute rubbish?

Is seeking to document the maximum COP of the average air conditioner under average temperatures, because it does not exist in the public domain, unworthy of effort, R&D, budget and time?

Perhaps reading the ASHRAE handbook of fundamentals is a waste of time?

I understand that, as a standard,  the burden of proof is upon the one making a scientific claim. However, new information is not available at every corner store. There are no links to substantiate NEW information.

With 15 simple letters you throw some of my finest WORK into the ditch.

Gianna, do you consider yourself of open mind?

Assuming you have an air conditioner, With enough budget and time, I could come to your home and point to the thermal potentials. I can place an 'x' on the sub system device that creates the heat potential (compressor), I can place an 'x' on the length of copper pipe where it exists prior to reaching the coil (hot air exchanger). I can place an 'x' on the device that creates the cold potential (expansion valve), I can place a 'x' on the length of copper pipe where that potential exists prior to entering the coil (cold air exchanger).

I respect an individuals ability for opinion and the right to express it. How you go about doing that reflects upon you. Gianna, I am asking you to bring it up a notch.

@ All, I can point to the potentials!
For me there was no hand rail, no easy trail of breadcrumbs to follow. I have spent the hours of contemplation required to earn this knowledge.

Is this realization enough to cause one to pause and consider upon the nature, dynamics, and magnitude of either of these thermal spikes?

This realization is only the beginning, the first step, to a wealth of greater understanding. 

I was surprised to find that these temperatures are known, off hand,  by every a/c technician.  But this represents the average a/c system. My mind went towards the question - what is the maximum potential? This is unknown to the public domain - as far as my research has been able to uncover. (I'm not asking for theoretical maximum debate and endless and pointless discussion.) I am looking for, rubber hits the road, real world heat pump builds and testing at average realistic temperatures. Say between freezing and summer days.

I am looking for the COP of water emmersed exchangers and the DATA supporting such calorimeter tests. (when this hits 88 mph, you're going to see some serious...)

I am looking for people who want to consider upon applying these potentials to even a TEM unit at 10% return thermal efficiency. (let alone the higher returns from stirling engine technology or steam engine/turbine technologies)

[The understanding of a phase change symbiotic thermal system and it's maximum COP is staggering to comprehend and reflect upon. But, you are probably not ready for this, nor the discovery that i am sitting on.]

First, We need to entertain the basics and create the foundation upon which to build.

Will you reflect upon the nature of these thermal potentials?
Will you begin to explore the dynamics of creating even higher thermal potentials?

Tom Booth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
    • My Heat Engine Project
Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
« Reply #87 on: December 28, 2012, 06:08:40 PM »
It is simply not possible. Fact one.. not all the ambient heat can be converted to electricity.

That has been postulated in thermodynamics. The "second law of..." I believe. My observation of the actual operation of some Stirling Engines however, as posted in another thread (discounting heat loss due to friction and conduction which can be minimized if not eliminated altogether), indicates that ALL the heat used in expanding the gas in such an engine (Lamina Flow "free piston" Stirling running without a flywheel and generating electricity via a linear generator) IS CONVERTED. Otherwise it seems impossible to explain the return of the piston in the cylinder with no stored momentum from a flywheel to push it.

You offered that this is due to the "resonant effect", which you were apparently unable to explain or describe in any detail. Call it what you will, the fact is that the gas after delivering energy to the piston, is seen to cool and contract with the result that the piston returns all the way back to its starting point. This appears to take place without heat transfer. That is, adiabatically. (Too fast for the gas to exchange heat with its surroundings. )

Fact two. because of this some of the ambient heat will reach the cold sink and it will begin to heat up. Fact three. Eventually the cold sink will warm to ambient temperature and potential for energy generation will stop. To continue producing energy cold sink will need to be cooled again. Fact four. cooling the cold sink will take more energy than the amount of energy produced by the heat engine.

If nearly all, if not all the heat is converted to work, then I see no reason why this work, or some of it, cannot be used for the removal of whatever small amount of nuisance heat may in one way or another find its way into the sink.

Perhaps you can make this clear by further elaboration. Simply stating something to be a "Fact" does not make it so.

Fact five.. no net energy production is possible from such a setup.
Fact six ... Tesla was wrong.

Your statements of opinion do not constitute "Fact".

Suppose you have a Stirling Engine driving a heat pump.

There are two reservoirs, one hot and one cold by means of which the engine is operating.

In the heat of the day the engine drives the heat pump so as to deliver heat from ambient to the hot reservoir. At night when the ambient temperature drops, the heat pump is reversed so as to take heat out of the sink and deliver it to the cool night air.



  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 500
Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
« Reply #88 on: December 28, 2012, 07:33:57 PM »
 ;D  People,
What is so unexpected about a heat pump?
It still amazes me why peple are astonished when they hear that  a heat pump gives for exmple  4kW of heat for 1 kW electricity used. Every refrigerator is doing the same.
People are using stuff every day without even thinking why and how it works.
Principle is well known and simple.
As ambient air that surrounds us has certain temperature ( thermal energy stored) if you have a working media that has lower evaporating temperature- it will absorb that energy during phase change from liquid to gas.So even if there is minus 5 deg.C outside, and freon has evaporating temperature , let's say minus 25 deg.C- there is a 20 deg.C temperature difference available for heat transfer.
Electrically driven cmpressor compresses this gas to the pressure ( and higher temperature) where gas goes back to liquid- giving off energy previously absorbed from ambient air.
So, there is no any energy "gain" or "free energy".There is simple "energy transfer" thanks to the low temperature boiling liquid.Overall efficiency is less than 100%.
Or simpler explanation : refrigerator or a heat pump works like that :  A LARGE VOLUME OF LOW GRADE HEAT ( let's say outside air of temperture minus 5 deg.C)  IS "COMPRESSED" TO  SMALLER VOLUME OF  HIGH GRADE HEAT ( let's say 60 deg.C) THAT IS USABLE. That is all.


  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
« Reply #89 on: December 04, 2013, 05:48:09 AM »

The reason a heat pump is worthy of discussion is because the conventional explanation of how
heat engines work and what is happening is WRONG. And the understanding of what's wrong with
the explanation is found in examining a heat pump (the opposite of a heat engine).

Examine a 4 stroke gas engine:

Intake - compression - power - exhaust

the basic physics explanation of why the temperature drops during the power stroke is that
"a portion of the heat is being converted into work".

If this were true, then, in a refrigeration cycle (the opposite of a heat engine), the temperature rise,
during compression, would be is due, solely, to 'work' being converted into heat. If that were the case,
the COP of a heat pump would be limited to 1. And it would be in-capable of creating 'cold'. And it
wouldn't be called a heat pump because it would just be a heater.

A heat pump is probably not a way to get an overunity, self running power source. It "is" the first
step in freeing yourself from the mental handcuffs which is stopping people for finding heat engine
solutions to this challenge.

The only thing "impossible" to do, is get a "gas state" heat engine to get higher than carnot cycle
efficiency. The carnot cycle simply charts the expected efficiency of a steam engine.

The key to an overunity heat engine is to design a "liquid state" cycle.

Heat goes through a heat engine and performs work in the process. The heat is not consumed.
Evidence: study the operation of a heat pump.

A 'Gas State' heat engine will always be under 100%


A 'Gas State' heat pump will always be over 100%

    They are the reverse of each other.

"Contrast" and the secret you can grasp after you accept the above:

You can not build a liquid state heat pump (liquid for entire cycle)
because a liquid is (for lack of a better phrase): "Not as thermally dynamic."


You CAN build a liquid state heat engine which is over 100%:
"BECAUSE" liquid is "Not as thermally dynamic"

By "not as thermally dynamic", I mean that:
Liquid expands as it's heated but does not cool or expand as pressure
is reduced.