# Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

## 2nd "law" violations => Heat to mechanical energy conversion => Topic started by: Nabo00o on September 19, 2008, 11:56:03 AM

Title: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Nabo00o on September 19, 2008, 11:56:03 AM
As I have looked around the forum for a while it seems like this problem (or blessing) with standard heat systems have not been discussed here yet. The problem is, that as we all know, a standard heatpump gives much more heat for the money than by using pure resisting heating. But why is this? When we are talking about a high efficiency heat pump, there is to be as little heat as possible created in the circuit, the main point is that heat is moved and compressed, so that we can use the temperature potential differance between the sink and the source. But energy is not removed to were the energy is moved, instead a higher potential is seemingly created allmost out of nothing, as the COP of the heatpump usualy is from 3 to 4 (times as much heat as eneergy put in).

But how can this be, I'd would like some open-minded replies to explain this phenomenan :)
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: spinner on September 19, 2008, 02:21:53 PM
Heat pumps are exactly what their name says.

A thermodynamic system where one of the inputs is electricity (to drive a compressor, pumps ventillators, circuitry,...) AND the other input is HEAT, pumped out from some other place  (ambient air, river, soil, solar, geothermal, ...,...).

Heat pump output (like central heating) "appears" to be several times more efficient, if one looks just an input of electricity. If boiler is heated with a 4kW heat pump with a CoP of 4, this device uses 1 kW of electricity AND 3kW of heat from some other place...

Needless to say, the source (from where the heat is pumped out) is cooling down (extraction of heat). But who cares if - e.g. the river flowing nearby gets cooler for a 0,001 deg?

P.S. check out the operation of a refridgerator in your kitchen. It's the same.
Some nasty people say this is the only "FE" device widely used....
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Steven Dufresne on September 19, 2008, 03:45:12 PM
@Nabo00o,.
Also, see this topic:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,5452.msg124249.html#msg124249
-Steve
http://rimstar.org
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: ChileanOne on September 19, 2008, 06:57:05 PM
Heat pumps are exactly what their name says.

A thermodynamic system where one of the inputs is electricity (to drive a compressor, pumps ventillators, circuitry,...) AND the other input is HEAT, pumped out from some other place  (ambient air, river, soil, solar, geothermal, ...,...).

Heat pump output (like central heating) "appears" to be several times more efficient, if one looks just an input of electricity. If boiler is heated with a 4kW heat pump with a CoP of 4, this device uses 1 kW of electricity AND 3kW of heat from some other place...

Needless to say, the source (from where the heat is pumped out) is cooling down (extraction of heat). But who cares if - e.g. the river flowing nearby gets cooler for a 0,001 deg?

P.S. check out the operation of a refridgerator in your kitchen. It's the same.
Some nasty people say this is the only "FE" device widely used....

Hello Spinner:

The FE confusion arises, I think, from the fact that environmental heat is as free as sun and/or wind, but, I agree that this is far from being OU in the sense "we FE woo woos" understand OU.

The National Institute of Oceanic Technology (NIOT) from India has developped a process called "Low temperature thermal desalination" (LTTD) based on the Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) technology, that uses the same principle of taking massive amounts of heat from the environment to generate distilled water. From the economic point of view, you use 180 watts of commercial electric energy (basically to pump sea water and create a partial vaccum chamber with a vaccum pump) to generate 1 cubic meter of distilled water. The process also takes around 36 Kw in the form of environmental heat for every cubic meter of water produced, but nobody has to pay for it, hence is "free".  If you compare the economic energy cost of this process with the current main technology used for desalination (Reverse Osmosis) that uses an average of 3,5 Kw of electric energy (to pump the water at high pressure through the membranes) per each cubic meter of water produced, you can see that the LTTD is far more convenient.

I doubt that anyone would really miss the environmental heat, that ultimately comes from solar energy, as long as the sun shines in the sky.

Regards.

Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Nabo00o on September 19, 2008, 08:05:00 PM
I agree that when you use a heat pump and get so much more energy out than what you used it is because the energy (the heat) is collected from the outside enviroment (like a river), thus making it cooler. But that coolness is really extra energy............. ;)
Don't you agree that if you seperate an ambient temperature into two different potentials, either a cooler one or a hotter one, you have an extra source of energy. Because as you well know a sterling engine can effectivly use both cooler and warmer than normal temperature to turn its wheel. And what a heat pump is doing is that it seperates and creates a higher temperature potential than what a normal 100% efficient heat element can, and twise again because the coolness can also be used as energy. This is what it does, that's what the COP 3-4 stands for, even though if you are told that it simply "extracts" it from somewere else, the energy is added, and it does not comply with a normal thermal dynamic system, its FAR over unity.

Think about it. The first thing you would say is that "the energy is extracted from a source thus the source gets cooler". Well, than you have not only added extra energy in your system, but you have also added an extra input of energy in the source (even though if its cooled and seems like it has lost energy).

And the point to all of this is, you could make a complete "closed" and isolated enviroment, were there was no input of temperature energy, only electricity, and you could have generated a higher output of electricity out because you had combined the heat pump with a stirling engine, which is great at converting heat to mechanical energy, which then could have turned a generator.

Since all that a heat pump does is to seperate the temperature, and all that a stirling engine does is to recombine it (elimenating the potential), the total temperature of that enviroment would neither increase or decrease (if you look away from friction). Still, the "magic" of the heat pump will remain, and will have its COP at something like 6 or 7, but the total efficiency of the system would go far beyond unity (if you look away from the backround potential which is the real power behind the motion).

This is what I wanted the people who looked at this topic to think about, were am I wrong?
Tell me, and especially you who are certain that the second law of thermodynamics cannot be broken.
If you are wrong, this could be the experiment that would prove with a straight-forward guide to how to be build, that the laws of thermodynamics is far away from the truth.

Hope sombody bothers to look through this ;)
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: infringer on September 20, 2008, 04:48:40 AM
This has been featured as a discussion in countless videos and articles like this one...

And I believe it is one of the reasons why people are deeply rooted in finding other forms of overunity in exsistance as well...

I cannot fully explain where the extra energy comes from myself but it is outstanding that there is yet proof of OU...

For power generation I do not know you would have to find a way to directly convert the excess energy from one form to another without loss to harness the potential gain... And have a means of storing it.

This dicussion is downright interesting in theory for conceptual proof of the exsistance of OU but beyond that I cannot think of a way to harness the excess power in a way that would prove fruitful... If you find a way heck let us know.
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Nabo00o on September 20, 2008, 12:58:34 PM
This has been featured as a discussion in countless videos and articles like this one...

And I believe it is one of the reasons why people are deeply rooted in finding other forms of overunity in exsistance as well...

I cannot fully explain where the extra energy comes from myself but it is outstanding that there is yet proof of OU...

For power generation I do not know you would have to find a way to directly convert the excess energy from one form to another without loss to harness the potential gain... And have a means of storing it.

This dicussion is downright interesting in theory for conceptual proof of the exsistance of OU but beyond that I cannot think of a way to harness the excess power in a way that would prove fruitful... If you find a way heck let us know.

Well, I do not really care about were the energy is coming from, but as we all know, the heat pump does create a higher temperature potential, it in fact decreases entropy in the closed sytem which means excess energy. And how to use it? By tapping it in the way I just described. There is excess heat potential, we use that potential to power a stearling enegine, mabye with an efficiency of 70% (if we are good), then the sterling engine is connected to a generator, again mabye with an efficience of 70%.
But that is good enough to create an excess amount of electricity, and of course, if we got enough we could probably send an ammount of that electricity back to the heatpump, thereby making it selfsubstained.

Of course, I know that this is more of a theoretical topic than a working model topic, but I think the practical bit is allready done, we only need to hook them up together, and then we could see if my logic was right.
I just find it to hard to let such an incredible opportunity go away just because there is some confusion about this subject. I don't think anyone can disprove the fact that the heatpump creates an extra, real energy potential which can be used to power whatever is in our mind. The logic about it doesn't work, there is nowhere in the process that it extracts energy from an existing physical source, it only increases the total temperature potential with far less joules of energy than what would be possible with a normal 100% efficient heat conversion.

I think it is when the theory is clear that people should work together to make a practical model which exploits those new boundries. I am not a extremely good mechanic myself, but I hope that somebody who is and mabye allready have access to the equipment needed could at least look into this area.

Also, what I think would be much more efficient than using electricity to power the heatpump would be to use the stirling engine to directly power the heatpump (rotating the turbine for example and cutting away the electricity conversion inefficiencies), and then with the excess temperature gradient, power the stirling engine again.
This could prove to be a little bit harder to get working than by using electricity, as everything must work perfectly for the selfsubstaining effect to occur.

Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Yucca on September 20, 2008, 03:31:37 PM
Heatpumps are IMHO definitely law breakers. To speak of "harvesting" ambient energy is misleading, if you create a thermal gradient then you have created a potential which, as naboo says, can then be used to do further work with stirling engine etc.

I think the answer to why this happens has to do with asymetric carnot cycles, that is, with repeated slow compression and fast decompression (has to be tuned) of a substance one can increase the overall energy of a system, the influx of energy that causes the net increase appears to be "free" energy and for all sakes of argument it is indeed free. The griggs hydrosonic pump breaks the laws in the same manner using slower decompression and rapid recompression due to cavitation, for the naysayers; these systems have been verified to break thermodynamic laws by universities, if one could efficiently turn the heat back into mechanical energy then a Griggs HSP would self run.
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: lancaIV on September 21, 2008, 01:14:14 AM
www.larbombas.pt/ing/energie/central_heating.html    this is the basic machine , a panel heat pump with a great C.O.P.( french inventor:Jacques Bernier)

now optimizing the mechanical parts :
www.eats.ltd.uk/heating_cooling.html   they improve the pump/compressor efficiency , probably internal  like Talon/RMS

now , to improve the pump/compressor drive :
www.ismogen.com or
www.trinitymotors.net
www.thegreenmotor.com       sntech

Let us estimate now , all in one, a C.O.P. of 10.

Now we need, for the reciproke process an efficient heat engine :
http://us.geocities.com/cosbytech

This is called " an ambient cycle" , I think so !

CdL

Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: infringer on September 21, 2008, 04:53:13 AM
As far as the sterling engine with that efficantcy good luck...

In my readings trying to even locate a stirling engine plan that was even close to cutting the mustard I found you will not find a plan without someone who charges an arm and a leg for there book...

I also made a mental note that most all sterling engines are very inefficiant as well in plenty of articles...

I cannot make any promises but if you can even find a free stirling design that is worth a damn that will help worlds and worlds...

I can not locate anything other then small scale models nothing that will even put out 1KW which is like the smallest generators the gas guys sell...

I would like to see real solid plans for the manufacture of a stirling engine that will run solid and produce at least 5KW of power and 10KW would be ideal...

If you can find that alone that would make me more then happy...

Cosby Technologies Why the cheesy website to premote such a product? Something spells not such a wise thing to depend on using a yahoo website to friggin host this surely there are free webhosts which do not place any ads on the users websites... Poor choice.

-infringer-
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Nabo00o on September 21, 2008, 01:43:11 PM
Yes, that's really the main problem with this setup, how to find a sterling engine capeable of handling power up in the kilowatt scale. I think I have seen some quite big ones on youtube, with a lot of tourqe, and powered by candle lights ;)
But that's the thing tough, that the practiality of this system isn't all that good yet, even if the concept seems to be correct.
I'd just wish some big manufacturer could build a powerplant with a heatpump as the source of energy, I guess you could allways have used a lot of small motors instead of a big one, that way it would at least function....
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: lancaIV on September 21, 2008, 05:20:39 PM
Mister Thomas Cosby is an"Oldtimer", if he is alive, in the middle eigthies-
and not a webpage-freak !
I would estimate that this us.geocities-page is from the end-90Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â´.

http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=US5626459&F=0

Amplitude:      80 degrees Fahrenheit ~ 32 degrees Celsius

Sincerely
CdL
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Nabo00o on September 22, 2008, 09:30:24 AM
I hope I'm not a "Naysayer" in this instance, but in a "Closed" system, cooler is LESS energy.

So, even though a Heat pump can have a "COP" of 4 (I think that's around average now..), the
heat IS coming from the external source.  The easiest way to see this is put the heat pump
"Pickup" cores into an enviroment where the temp is below the evaporation point of the working
fluid, as it is used in what type of pump.  At that temp, the COP is <1.  The extra energy is
coming from the enviroment, usually by evaporation, and the compressor just converts the
"Gas" back to liquid.

This is a seperate concept than more efficient pumps, motors, turbines or whatever, and so I
can't properly mention them, other than to discount them for this specific application.  Here is
the bottom line, as far as a True Closed system, with no Heat in or out.  If you have a 100%
efficient sterling engine, driving a heat pump, creating the heat difference for the engine, this
will run down from friction losses eventually.   Any energy drawn from the system will actually
drop the overall tempurature of the system until there is not enough heat left to operate.

Sorry, but that is a very old arguement, long ago proven, but don't take my word for it.  That
was actually a MAJOR teaching point in my 7th grade physics class.  (Too many decades
ago for me to count...)  Any part of the process that could be enhanced to OU operation is
a whole different story, but to counter the title, the "Heatpump" is just that.  It Pumps "HEAT".
Nothing more or less.  A Pump that drew 0 power, other than motion loss replacement, would
still not be OU from a system point.  The Heat, or Energy, that it puts out is Pumped, not created,
or generated in any way.

My last blurb.  If anyone can come up with a way to Pump heat, AND produce power at the same
time, from the PUMP itself, then you have made an OU device, as well as perpetual motion.  More
complexity won't help, only make things worse.  However, here's where it gets good.  The electric
company used to offer heat pump assists for the water heater in your home.  The problem was, they
would draw heat from the basement, or whatever room you mounted the unit it.  What comes to my
mind is, and was, what if you wanted to Air condition that room?  (Strangely, you can't get them
anymore.  Geee,   I wonder why...)

Art.

No, you are not a naysayer :)
But also, 'no', you are wrong.
In our closed system, energy can be more than one thing.
Energy can be the heated atoms which hold more energy the more heat they have stored in them, or which keeps them in high motion.
That's the view which makes all those arguments people have against a heatpump's extraordinary efficiency to hold true. Then there is no extra efficiency, just a movment of heat.
But the other energy potential which is of much greater importance to me is the temperature potential between any gradient of heat.
Be it extremely cold and a little warmer, or extremely hot and a little colder, (or even wamrer), the energy lies in the differance between the two temperatures, and we can collect that energy and normally does with stirling engine because its made to do just that.

Now, in this instance cold is energy, because coolness add's a temperature potential. Now, a heatmpump does just that, it creates a higher potential differance for a lesser input of energy. It is allready far overunity, in my mind at least.

And if you used the heatpump in the simple configuration that I suggested the room or isolated box wouldn't begin to cool down as the energy was tapped. Since we both create a heat and cold potential from the heat pump we use both in the stirling engine, and what is the stirling engine doing with the potential? It ballances it out so that there is no more energy potential in the room, only a little more hotter since some energy was lost in the heat pump's conversion inefficiencies between electrical and mechanical work.

Now is that wrong, does the coolness not relate to a energy potential if you use it to move air and mechanical parts?
Isn't it even just only coolness that is needed to drive a special made stirling engine that could run on ice-chunks, as am sure you can find it if you search the tube. Also of course, it can not run on the coolness alone, just as it can not run on heat alone. It needs a temperature differance between two levels and the heat pump creates that, for much less energy input than a 100% efficient electrical heater would (if you look at the potential it creates).

Again, this is a subject which is controversial, but I think I have made this topic clear enough so that people can realize the error in the views they have had about the heat pump's incredible efficiency. Again, where am I wrong? I'd like to hear your reply.
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Nabo00o on September 23, 2008, 01:58:37 PM
You know, I think this whole subject bout the heat pump has become over complicated. It could be made much easier to comprehend by using simple statments to what it does and why it does it.

Quote
You are describing the "Difference" in temperature as being an energy source?  Come on....
ANY difference in "Potential", weather it's velocity, EMF, Mag Fields, or temperature is where
we get ALL of or energy, so that whole concept is well defined.

Yes, but strangely enough people seems to forget that fact when they talk about the real efficiency of an heat pump, and instead only talks about the heat energy which is moved back and forth, which then of course will not give any more energy or potential.

Quote
Lets start at the beginning.  There is no such thing as a truly closed system.....
....      and THAT is what true research on FE and OU is all about.
Sorry for the cut down there, but YES, of course I agree!
That's the whole point with overunity and free energy research, energy is never created, its only collected and transformed from other sources, and to put it easly, when that source is outside of you system, or if its not accounted for in you system, then that system will ALLWAYS be a open system. Of course all systems that exists anywere in the universe is an open system, since they all interact with each other and dynamically exchange their energies with each other.

Quote
Start the
heatpump, and you  can move the heat around, creating the potential difference.  The difference
will contain the amount of energy that you put into it from the power to the heatpump.  Even if the
Sterling gets ALL of the difference and converts it, you will find that what you got out, assuming
100% transfer (Yeah, right...) is exactly what you put in.  With a fully closed system, you could
possibly put in 500Joules of power and keep circulating it around for a Loooong time, put as soon
as you pull that power back out, the potential difference will start to drop and at 500Joules out, you
will have no more potential difference anymore.

If we say that this is the heat pump/sterling engine in a box setup, than what you are saying completely wrong!
This sentence right here:
Quote
The difference will contain the amount of energy that you put into it from the power to the heatpump.
This is wrong, because that's exactly the power of a heat pump over existing technology, "it moves the heat for less energy than necessary to generate the heat". It creates a higher temperature potential by moving the heat than what would be possible by generating it in a common heat-producing process. The potential is allready higher in this box, in the normal COP of 3-4. Out of nothing, well no, it could come from anywhere. The point is that this is where we have our main conflict, and I am sure one of us will be able to agree with the other if we are both open to new ideas and able admitt ones mistakes. At least I hope I am :)

Quote
I realize that I cannot convince everybody, nor will I try, but the fun example is this.  A Free heatpump,
which does exist and is in use.  Simple design and uses gravity for it's power source.  Seems like
that is a free energy source, but it's actually using gravity.  How that conversion affects the system
is unknown to me, but it's still not a free energy device, due to that gravity input that is required.  In
case you have never heard about them, here is the simple version, but they come in many more forms
and have been commercially available for over 30 years in the manufacturing industry.  Imagine a tube,
say 1 Meter long.   Place this upright and fill with a liquid that evaporates at low temp.  Make sure
this tube has hollow fins on all sides, both inside and out, and remove air,etc, then seal the thing.

Hehe, I know this one. Its the drinking bird. There's some funny videos of it on youtube.
It's a little bit interesting, since it seems to be able to move itself more relative to gravity because of the condensing fluid's pathway upwards towards the sky. I don't so much about it that I can say anything for sure, allthough I have seen one model were a guy have made a big wheel with about 4 or 8 cylinders on it. It moves very slowly but has a lot of horsepower....

Quote
In any pure heat conversion, once 0K is reached, the system stops.

Yes and this is where the heat pump is different. I does not generate heat, it only moves heat, and its really not the same thing.
Mabye you could say that its like moving the boundries of the system relative to other systems in order to make them interact ....;)

Quote
Now for the other end.  There is no-way that we are quickly going to remove all the heat from the Earth
in a short period of time, so there IS a tremendous source of energy right below out feet.  Tapping and
using this is easier that you would think, and devices to do it are readily available.  I'm certain of the
reasons that they are not in more common use, and that has to do with energy control, etc., but it
STILL would not be "FE" or "OU" in the overall sense.  Still, it would look great on paper and would
take a long time to turn the Earth into an Ice Cube.  Sure, we could then reheat with other energy forms
and matter-energy conversion, but that's a different set of concepts and wouldn't make any of the
Heatpump setups OU.  Now, if you could create a unit that produces more heat than power input,
WITHOUT pumping it from another source, there is OU and FE, but then you don't have a heatpump.
Now you have a heat generator.  Different concept.   Just like a fridge, the heat out comes from the
heat in the items put in the fridge, and the losses in the compressor, etc.  Not from no-where.

The heat pump will not create any exess heat if you just let the potential inside the box or whatever to equall itself out again. Then the usable potential will have been removed just as much as it had been created by the pump. However, if you let the cop 4 temperature potential created inside the box to be used by a stirling engine, so that the heat and cold does not get in the extremes (as the higher the difference between the source and the sink is, the lower the efficiency is), then you could use the extra potential created  and for example create more heat via mechanical interactions.

So this is basically were it stands for me, and I belive I have told you were the errors in your assumtions are made (from my view of course).

I hope I have not bored you away from this forum forever.....
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: infringer on September 24, 2008, 01:14:38 AM
Art you are most likely correct but is any system truley a closed system there is minute effects from the enviorment in every system everything has a decay life as well so the universe is doomed eventually unless galaxies reincarnate go from energy to matter once again ...

It is my belief that energy is never lost and neither is matter it is shifted from one form back to the other.

But that is just a belief and a whole nother topic...

But the goal here is electricity no matter how scientific if they roll like every thing is supposed to roll in 2010 you shall only pay 10cents a watt for solar...
Granted that is an estimate based on mass production. But for about a grand or a little better a household could be energy dependandt lets say two grand...

Personally the best option I believe is to store energy as hho or hydrogen and use the excess for cloudy days...

That will cost more but... I think hydrogen then will be the cleanest alternative that this world has seen and will be a niche. If i had to bet money on our free energy future thats where I would say its at.

-infringer-
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Nabo00o on September 24, 2008, 02:40:24 AM
Do not be so sure of that infringer, even if it is the cheapest technology aviable to make all our cars into free driving petrobiles :)
Of course, the heat pump will definitely not be the cheapest and powerfull technology available, but it proves a point of immence importance.

Now to the heat pump again, it will need a sufficient high temperature to start, because in a way, it uses the heat as a medium to channel in extra energy potentials. And in the case of a possible overunity machine, a small ammount of heat input to start the system isn't such a big loss.

Still you seem to fall away from my main reason to belive why that a heat pump can eceed unity, because it creates a temperature potential of much greater energy potential than input, and that this energy potential does in no way reflect on the energy allready existing in the system in the form of heat, as that is another form of potential, but still usable  energy of course.

Hmm, any more reasons I have forgot to mention?
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: spinner on September 27, 2008, 11:43:51 AM
Hello Spinner:

The FE confusion arises, I think, from the fact that environmental heat is as free as sun and/or wind, but, I agree that this is far from being OU in the sense "we FE woo woos" understand OU.

The National Institute of Oceanic Technology (NIOT) from India has developped a process called "Low temperature thermal desalination" (LTTD) based on the Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) technology, that uses the same principle of taking massive amounts of heat from the environment to generate distilled water. From the economic point of view, you use 180 watts of commercial electric energy (basically to pump sea water and create a partial vaccum chamber with a vaccum pump) to generate 1 cubic meter of distilled water. The process also takes around 36 Kw in the form of environmental heat for every cubic meter of water produced, but nobody has to pay for it, hence is "free".  If you compare the economic energy cost of this process with the current main technology used for desalination (Reverse Osmosis) that uses an average of 3,5 Kw of electric energy (to pump the water at high pressure through the membranes) per each cubic meter of water produced, you can see that the LTTD is far more convenient.

I doubt that anyone would really miss the environmental heat, that ultimately comes from solar energy, as long as the sun shines in the sky.

Regards.

@ChileanOne
Hello! Glad to talk to you here!
Thank you very much for a very good post and info about LTTD process. It's good to see an implementation of scientifical understanding of Nature..

I glimpsed through an article, it's nice to see some real action. This is a very good project, using "a conventional understanding and alternative - 'ambient' energy".

I was never really impressed by a current (popular) sea-water desalination methods (using a "brute force", relatively low efficient "reverse osmosis" and a high quality energy for producing drinking water), but this LTTD process appears much more natural. Of course it has a minuses, too (weather/ambient/location dependable, not suitable for a small-scale use, etc...). Still, a very promissing challenge...

@Nab00o
Yes, I think I understand what you mean... A "high CoP" heat pump should produce large enough "thermal difference"/potential, that a carefully made heat to mechanical converter (like Stirling), to electricity conversion (el. generator) may produce enough electricity for the system to be able to self-sustain... (constantly operating - pumping heat from "somewhere" (untill the "heat source" dies...))

But you're forgetting that a potential (temperature) difference is not equal to the work/energy potential... A large "heat" but small "temperature" difference reservoir has a much larger "work" / energy potential than a large temp./small heat capacity difference...

In a way, it's the same as V/I terms of electricity...

Yes, it appears that  a CoP 4 heat pump (currently there are a CoP 6, 7 and even >10 Thermodynamic devices....) would allowed a self-sustaining of a heat-pumping... Surprisingly, that would not broke any TD laws.... The energy would still be pumped out some EXTERNAL source.... But we wouldn't need any imput of (additional, electrical) energy... Our home "heat pump" would be completelly driven by a surrounding heat....
As NO electricity connections, only X kW of a pumped thermal energy... So, where's the catch ???

Do you know any such device? Is there some kind of conspiracy involved? ??

Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Nabo00o on September 27, 2008, 10:19:55 PM
@ChileanOne
Hello! Glad to talk to you here!
Thank you very much for a very good post and info about LTTD process. It's good to see an implementation of scientifical understanding of Nature..

I glimpsed through an article, it's nice to see some real action. This is a very good project, using "a conventional understanding and alternative - 'ambient' energy".

I was never really impressed by a current (popular) sea-water desalination methods (using a "brute force", relatively low efficient "reverse osmosis" and a high quality energy for producing drinking water), but this LTTD process appears much more natural. Of course it has a minuses, too (weather/ambient/location dependable, not suitable for a small-scale use, etc...). Still, a very promissing challenge...

@Nab00o
Yes, I think I understand what you mean... A "high CoP" heat pump should produce large enough "thermal difference"/potential, that a carefully made heat to mechanical converter (like Stirling), to electricity conversion (el. generator) may produce enough electricity for the system to be able to self-sustain... (constantly operating - pumping heat from "somewhere" (untill the "heat source" dies...))

But you're forgetting that a potential (temperature) difference is not equal to the work/energy potential... A large "heat" but small "temperature" difference reservoir has a much larger "work" / energy potential than a large temp./small heat capacity difference...

In a way, it's the same as V/I terms of electricity...

Yes, it appears that  a CoP 4 heat pump (currently there are a CoP 6, 7 and even >10 Thermodynamic devices....) would allowed a self-sustaining of a heat-pumping... Surprisingly, that would not broke any TD laws.... The energy would still be pumped out some EXTERNAL source.... But we wouldn't need any imput of (additional, electrical) energy... Our home "heat pump" would be completelly driven by a surrounding heat....
As NO electricity connections, only X kW of a pumped thermal energy... So, where's the catch ???

Do you know any such device? Is there some kind of conspiracy involved? ??

Bah! Just wrote a whole page then something with my browser screwed up and I lost it ;(

Anyway, the device is not in existance but all the components is, its only a matter of putting them together to make it work. Also, it would be far better to throw away the electric turbine that drives the heatpump and instead use the sterling engine to drive it, as it would be alot more efficient and would not need an electrical powersource for the gas compression.
I personally think that there is a problem both with the scientific community and with the power innterests (mainly oil), and since they both are happy with the way our world is today they will have a hard time changing to something as radical as this. Of course that goes for any other possible free energy machine cabeable of producing a usable output of energy
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: greendoor on September 28, 2008, 05:00:57 AM
Conservative science is tarnished with this fixation that free-energy, perpetual motion or overunity is impossible.  For this reason, the makers of any appliance (such as a heat pump) that offers free energy has to devise some semantics to make it appear acceptable.  This is why the term Coefficeint of Performance has become necessary - to avoid silly arguments like we have here.

A typical heat pump is really a sophisticated solar energy device.  The ambiant environment is used as a heat soak, so these things can work at night or on cloudy days - but basically the heat comes from the sun, or geothermal or whatever heat source is creating the heat energy.  The clever trick is to turn a lot of low temperature heat into a smaller amount of high temperature heat.  In that regard, it's a little like an electrical transformer than can turn low volts into high volts, at the expense of current.  So the total energy into this thing is always less that you get out, due to losses.  But to the consumer who doesn't have to pay for the ambiant heat energy, it's FREE ENERGY, baby.

There NO reason why a heat pump cannot power a generator, and given a COP of 4, there is NO reason why the generator could not run the heat pump, and the surplus would be genuine free energy.  Clearly a Perpetuum Mobile of the 2nd kind.  Without a doubt.  And this fact should not be disputed.

So why aren't we seeing this being done?  Who cares about semantics - this is FREE ENERGY for the taking.  Ultimately, it will cool the earth a little.  Worried about global warming?  This is the solution.

I agree with the original poster - this fact needs to be pointed out, because obviously not many people understand that this is possible.  They are too indoctrinated with the 'laws of thermodynamics' mantra.  But this does not break the laws of thermodynamics - the source of energy is obvious.  And its free.  And yes, it could definately be engineered to run a self-sustaining perpetual motion machine with useful power output.  (If we can avoid the semantic disputes about whether a mechanical device that could break down in 100 years time is by definition 'perpetual' ...).

Do it.  Build it  Make yourself rich.  It's all possible.

Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: greendoor on September 28, 2008, 05:23:37 AM
It would make a lot of sense to avoid some of the steps in the process - because a heat pump is made for people who want cheap heat.  But if we want cheap electricty, don't bother turning the compressed refrigerant into heat again - turn it into rotary motion.

So a decent commercial device would be a box that connects to a fluid loop buried in the ground that is the source of a high volume of low temperature heat.  We would need a starter motor to get this started, but once started, this would self power.  There would be a refrigerant compressor, that initially the starter motor would have to turn.  This compressor would compresses the low temp refrigerant and turn it into hot compressed liquid.  This liquid would then go to a turbine, where it expands and cools, driving a generator.  The energy available to the generator turbine is the sum of the energy being put into the compressor (initially from the starter motor) and the sum of the heat energy extracted from the loop embedded into the environment.

The trick is to let the hot compressed refrigerant gas really expand so much that it gets very cold.  Have you ever seen the frost that forms around a car tyre when the air is being let out?  Expanding gases get very cold - because obviously the motion of the molecules has less friction between them as the distance between increases due to increasing volume.

So this cool gas is pumped through the ambiant loop, and this causes the ambiant heat to continue to flow into the system.

We know that with todays technology, a COP >3 is possible.  So allowing for losses in the turbine, compressor and generator, should still be able to get overunity with good engineering practices.  It won't be easy - but it should be possible.

Providing the generator is outputting more power than the compressor is consuming, the starter motor could be turned off and the system should self sustain.

Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: infringer on September 28, 2008, 05:42:18 AM
Sure decompress liquid to gas open valve then have a turbine spinning generating electricity ...

But the design would have to be all contained within the unit and would be subject to very volitile conditions if you had a turbine generating off of an external shaft then you would be constantly loosing gas so everything would have to be generated within the unit... Are these fumes flameable? Would a spark ignite them and cause an explosion ?? My guess is most likely while I have researched it throughly you may want to as it may cause an explosion.
Though I urge you to look further to see if this gas form is highly flameable dont wish to eliminate a possibility here and maybe there is a way to use an eclosed berring so that you do not lose gas but I highly doubt it espicially at temperature differnces it is subjected to ...

There was a design fot liquid nitrogen electricity generation that was being sold at MPI I believe might wanna look at that...

So that brings us back to the sterling engine and possible direct conversion of the temperature differnces... This is my proposal if you wish to take a stab at it.
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: sparks on September 28, 2008, 02:27:52 PM
Now imagine cutting out the compressor all together.  Heat is described as the amount of mass velocity per given spacial dimension.  On a molecular scale this is very randomized.  Imagine a pipe buried in the ground but it is filled with ionized gas.  The gas absorbs the heat from the ground and the molecules start to thrash around.   Now the gas is slowly circulated through a chamber where an external field causes the gas to go from randomized motion to a unified motion.  This guided motion causes them to bombard a solar panel.
Back down to the ground to get stirred up again.
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Xaverius on September 28, 2008, 08:11:57 PM
This dicussion is downright interesting in theory for conceptual proof of the exsistance of OU but beyond that I cannot think of a way to harness the excess power in a way that would prove fruitful... If you find a way heck let us know.
[/quote]

It may be possible to harness this energy with the use of cryogenics.  A SuperCooled heat sink would provide a large differential for a large heat transfer. The available heat could be used to power a thermionic circuit.  These circuits are presently 40% efficient at most, but with a COP of 5 you could double the power output as compared to input.  These systems are very expensive, high maintenance and dangerous but like everything else, safety is enhanced and expense is lowered with widespread use, mass production.
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Nabo00o on September 28, 2008, 10:33:20 PM
Everybody, my idea is not about extracting energy out from the temperature of our planet. That is not what I am talking about here, even if it would be a practical and economic solution to both our energy consumtion problem and our global warming problem( even if we ain't causing it). My convincing comes out from the view that we are not at all extracting energy from the heat itself when we use the heat pump, but only the potential it creates for us freely. I strongly belive that we are talking about two different energies here, and that one of them affects the other (the higher the total temperature is, the more capacity there is in the system and thus more energy to be potentiolized).

We say that a heat pump moves heat, but in reality what it does is that it seperates heat into temperature potentials, and it does it with an efficiency of 3 to 5, if we don't take into account the hidden source of energy which is necessary to make this into a system of unity (every system is in a state of unity if you account for every form of energy which is generated and wasted, my oppinion at least).

There is no reason to why we would need an external temperature source to make this system last forever (until brakedown), it dosn't convert heat into energy, it only converts the heat potential into energy, therefore the differance in potential inside say a box filled with air of  a certain temperature would change and eventually be used up, but the total temperature in that box wouldn't change, as a matter of fact it would steadly increase bacause of friction which is inevitable in any real system.

Even if this isn't a very practical system, it uses the commonly overlooked ability of a heat pump to make a potential for less energy than what that potential would give if you then used it to do work. It is something that seems to be impossible for our days scientists to explain, even if it was invented allmost a century ago...

So my idea isn't new at all, I am just extremely interested in this 'phenoman' of a common heat pump, and if anyone could sucessfully build a unit demonstrating it working that would have been amazing, even though if it aint very practical.
I  have myself been thinking on building one of Shaubergers devices to create an unlimited supply of electricity, allthough it will use the heat in the air and convert it into a higher kinetic energy in the swirling water, and in a very efficient conversion too!
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: infringer on September 29, 2008, 02:46:34 AM
Well dont think of victors device post away contain links ...

Get the party started already :P
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Nabo00o on September 29, 2008, 09:13:04 AM
And for those interested in Viktor Chauberger, these links may be interesting ;)
Aint saying that you should do anything illegal .....

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3494269/Coats__amp__Schauberger_-_The_Energy_Evolution_-_Harnessing_Free_Ene
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3494267/Coats__amp__Schauberger_-_Living_Energies_-_Viktor_Schauberger_s_Br
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3494274/Implosion_-_Viktor_Schauberger_and_the_Path_of_Natural_Energy_(1
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: nitinnun on January 08, 2009, 10:37:13 PM
resistance BY ITSELF, causes heat.

that is why a heat pump generates more heat, than electricity is creating.
because the heat pump moved around temperature with resistance, and this resistance creates heat.

resistance causes heat,
and heat causes resistance.

EXACTLY like a magnetic field causes electricity,
and electricity causes a magnetic field.
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Nabo00o on January 09, 2009, 02:11:09 AM
resistance BY ITSELF, causes heat.

that is why a heat pump generates more heat, than electricity is creating.
because the heat pump moved around temperature with resistance, and this resistance creates heat.

resistance causes heat,
and heat causes resistance.

EXACTLY like a magnetic field causes electricity,
and electricity causes a magnetic field.

Yes resistance causes heat, and heat most often increases resistance (at least electrically), but that is not why the heat pump have a COP of 3-5!
I you were to go and try to explain somebody that the reason to why their heat pump makes so much heat is that it first create heat, which than creates friction, which then makes heat and continues infinitely, you would be regarded as a wacko. Not trying to be rude;)
But that equation doesn't add up, and it is not friction which allows this system to have such high efficiency.
If your try to create heat out of friction you need energy, and you will not get more heat than the energy put in, and resistance in a wire is also a form of friction (for the electrons).

The short and simple way to explain it is by saying that the heat pump compresses and therefore heats a volume of air which originally was room temperature (we start with that).
Because the air is so hot it then gives of much of the heat to its uninsulated environment, which heats it up.
Then when the air has almost reached room temperature again, it expands by going through a pressure valve which lowers both the pressure and the temperature. Than it is lead through a room temperature environment which it sucks the heat from, thereby adding heat to the air, which then in the end will be compressed and sent to the heated room or chamber.

So its not based on friction but on a dynamic change between temperature and pressure, while exploiting the difference between the two.
Where the extra energy comes from is still hard to answer, but the process still does what it does, and that is also the reason to why so many million homes uses it has their source of both heat and cooling.
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Nabo00o on May 01, 2009, 04:53:59 PM
Guys (and gals :D ), this is a more practical way of doing it: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3383-self-running-ambient-heat-engine.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3383-self-running-ambient-heat-engine.html)

And still I ain't quite sure if the energy comes from the outside temperature, in my mind the potential itself is free, but the outside air is the 'medium'. There's a difference.
Here comes the good stuff, a way to use air pressure to create more pressure, its like a heat pump, only that it is made to create high pressure, and uses sharp gradients to make the effect happen!

Index: http://www.aircaraccess.com/index.htm (http://www.aircaraccess.com/index.htm)

The technique: http://www.aircaraccess.com/equalizer.htm (http://www.aircaraccess.com/equalizer.htm)

A motor using the effect: http://www.aircaraccess.com/nealtank.htm (http://www.aircaraccess.com/nealtank.htm)

And tons of pdf files on pneumatics, specifically about free energy:
http://aircaraccess.com/requests1.htm (http://aircaraccess.com/requests1.htm)

Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Nabo00o on July 09, 2009, 02:36:46 AM
I don't know if this should be posted here, it probably needs a new tread (or an entire topic).
But it seems that the heat pump along with so many other inventions uses the same type of technique to generate more energy out of its incoming (physical) energy, and it is the principle of asymmetry.

To you who have heard of Alexander V. Frolov, this might probably make more sense, but time and time reversal effects is actually involved here, and in all other processes which changes the symmetrical interactions between time and space. This is actually what free energy (real free energy) is all about, of course true over unity does not exist because it literally means more in than out (total)!

This is just a hint to you if any of you want to know more about why this works and why current and power consumption in reality is not necessary to power any of our machines and lights.
Also, this will probably not work for complete materialists  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: infringer on July 09, 2009, 04:00:01 AM
Good info we all know that air can power and someone should look more into these claims...

It would be rather easy generate power with air I would assume...

Excess air interesting concept... if true.
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: ATT on July 09, 2009, 08:25:05 AM
.
I don't know if anybody's missing the boat here, but do you understand that when heat-pump COP is published it's just a comparison of the power required for the heat-pump to produce x-btu/h compared to what it would take a resistance heat-strip to produce x-btu/h?

Resistance heating produces 3.41 BTUH per watt (that's inordinately inefficient).

A 1500 watt bathroom heater produces 5,115 btu/h.

So a 3-ton (nominal 36000 btu) heat-pump would be the equivalent of about seven bathroom heaters, which would draw around 10.5KW for straight resistance heating.

With a COP of 5 (COP=Rated BTU/(Unit Watts x 3.41)), the heat-pump should operate around 2.1KW .

The key word here is 'should'. If you hang an Amprobe on it and check the draw, multiplying what you get by 230 will tell the real tale.

Heat-pumps only operate within a restricted ambient temperature range ( > approx 40F ), and continue to de-rate as the ambient temp drops. After that, they kick-in with 2nd-stage (resistance) heat-strips.

They also 'freeze-up' and have to defrost their outside coils from time to time. This is because they are simply a standard air-conditioner with the addition of a reversing-valve (and maybe a receiver and additional metering device), the 'outside' coil in the winter time is what you would consider the 'inside' coil in the summer (the evaporator coil, which is usually running at about 40 degrees cooler that the air flowing over it).

The above is true for air-over heat pumps, geo-source and water-source (which can be used to extract geo-heat) may not encounter the same ambient-temp restrictions, but their output is limited by the environment they operate in, all the same.

Personally, I heat with wood, but here's a comparison of resistance-heat, heat-pump and natural-gas that gives you an idea of cost-efficiency (2009 prices in California are approximate):

BTU/H: 36000

electric-resistance heat:..10.5KWh..@..\$0.20/KWh   = \$2.10/h
heat-pump:.....................2.1KWh..@..\$0.20/KWh   = \$0.42/h
nat-gas (36kbtuh bonnet):16 cu-ft..@..\$0.02/cu-ft  = \$0.32/h

As you can see, electrical-resistance heat is the most cost-inefficient of the bunch and it's actually cheaper to generate your BTUs with gas than with a heat pump, especially since the heat-pump will be in 'defrost' or operating in a de-rated condition a good portion of the time.

Now, if you had a way to produce around 100 PSI+ of air-pressure (with any decent CFM) for free, you could use a Hilsch-tube to both heat and cool your house with no moving parts...all it takes is air...

Tony
.
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: mscoffman on July 09, 2009, 04:53:04 PM

They also 'freeze-up' and have to defrost their outside coils from time to time. This is because they are simply a standard air-conditioner with the addition of a reversing-valve (and maybe a receiver and additional metering device), the 'outside' coil in the winter time is what you would consider the 'inside' coil in the summer (the evaporator coil, which is usually running at about 40 degrees cooler that the air flowing over it).

The above is true for air-over heat pumps, geo-source and water-source (which can be used to extract geo-heat) may not encounter the same ambient-temp restrictions, but their output is limited by the environment they operate in, all the same.

I think that "ground sourced loop" heat pump would be the only
one to consider over an outdoor free heat sink heat pump for
excess energy generation purposes. This would result in a
"seasonal energy averaging" method applicable to warmer
and moderate climates. One would be using the ground or a lake
or a parking lot as an opportunistic solar energy absorber and cold
sink. If an energy conversion heat pump were ever to operate in
resistive heating mode, then system design would not make sense.

Thank you Tony, It's good to see some real numbers, by the way.

:S:MarkSCoffman
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Nabo00o on July 09, 2009, 10:30:27 PM
@Infringer
You should check out the links I posted, ESPECIALLY the one named Equalizer, as this explains the main reason to why we can create much more power only by equalizing two different pressures.
When a large tank with say 6 bars of pressure is filling up a small tank (to make the reduction of pressure in the big tank a minimal) the smaller tank will have a huge increase of temperature, as a matter of fact the increase will be so much the tank needs to be cooled if not risking to explode (because of excessive pressure!). But if allowed to cool and 'equalize' its temperature with the main tank and its surroundings again no increase of pressure will stay there. This is what's so interesting, using sharp gradients of time and power to increase the effect tremendously. The equalizer will in this case be a small tank or just simple pipe which is fitted with two one-way valves and receives an 'explosion' of air inside.

Again you should read that page, I found it incredibly interesting to read, it might just show one of the ways we can change our future into a green and clean world with infinite amounts of power.
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Nabo00o on July 09, 2009, 10:41:50 PM
@Tony
Just some years ago I can remember reading a electrician/automatic popular science magazine.
Of the several things discussed there a Japanese heat pump caught my attention.
The scientists who had invented and tested it claimed a COP of 12 in regular conditions and could go far past that in ideal conditions.

One more VERY interesting thing about heat pumps is that they are only used to do one thing, either to cool or to heat something. However, if they are used at both at the same time (cooling one part of the Stirling engine while heating the other ;D) the COP can be doubled.

Now.... Just think about that kind of efficiency....
If a power plant was made, then we would absolutely have used 'optimal' conditions....

Naboo
Title: Latent (hidden) heat transfer
Post by: angryScientist on July 10, 2009, 12:18:14 AM
Efficiency is created when the hidden heat or heat of latency of the working fluid is employed.

Quote
Latent : "Present or potential but not evident or active."

[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin latÃªns, latent-, present participle of latÃªre, to lie hidden.]

Imagine:

A working fluid as a liquid is introduced to a vacuum. Some where the liquid must find enough energy to reach the boiling point plus the latent energy needed to make the change from the liquid phase to the gas phase. If it fails to find the energy it will remain a liquid.

Increasing the pressure also increases the temperature. It also increases the boiling point. The benefit of a higher boiling point in that the working fluid turns back into a liquid (hopefully) at a temperature higher than the ambient temp. All that heat hidden in the phase change is released to ambient.

The latent heat is not noticed while moving or compressing the working fluid. Only in the phase changes is the latent heat visible as an increase in heat carrying capacity or COP.
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Nabo00o on July 10, 2009, 01:20:01 AM
Sorry if this is too straight to the point, but are you saying that the set COP of a certain heat pump is based on an illusion or miscalculation based on the phases of the compression/decompression process and so leads to wrong numbers? I'm sorry if this is wrongly assumed but it was hard for me to understand you correctly, of course I do not have an actual theoretical training in heat pumps and heat machines in general, it is just stuff that I have picked up and learned over the years...

Help me understand   :-\
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: ATT on July 10, 2009, 01:28:15 AM
@Tony
Now.... Just think about that kind of efficiency....
If a power plant was made, then we would absolutely have used 'optimal' conditions....

@Nabo00o
Yes, your thread definitely is making me think in a new direction, visa vi heat-pumps.

I pulled a random specification (submittal data for a GE heat-pump) and went through the numbers to actually 'see' what, if any, possibilities there might be.

I coupled this with an Organic Rankine Cycle generator, using data from a very thorough paper on the subject (including parts list and all experimental data) and, even with a COP of 3.0, it looks 'just' doable (disregarding accumulative transitional losses).

Should the (real) COP of an HP be greater than this, and/or the Carnot efficiency of the ORC be greater than 37%, it would be pretty much a definite 'Go' for this idea.

I'd be happy to post the work-up and links to the ORC data if you like, but it's nothing very dramatic, aside from the fact that it shows the viability of your idea.

Tony

Edit:
I just noticed your reply to angryScientist after posting this. Compression is necessary to initiate a change of state in the refrigerant, this compression adds energy to the system and heat to the medium. Therefore, a heat-pump is transferring the 'sensible' heat from the ambient environment and adding what is referred to as the 'heat of compression' to that transfer medium, this is the 'latent' or 'hidden' heat that is only partially available as sensible temperature increase since work had to be done to achieve a change of state.

Does it affect your position on COP? Only if the manufacturer's stated BTU output of the device allows for this. In a strictly 'consumer' sense, I'm not sure if this sort of thing is allowable (elevating a performance characteristic beyond the 'sensible' capacity rating).

As I may have mentioned before, the manufacturer's data has to be 'real' in order to determine the ultimate viability of the idea.
.

Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Nabo00o on July 10, 2009, 03:17:47 AM

Does it affect your position on COP?

No. If the the COP of a given heat pump can accurately describe its efficiency at generating a potential of temperature in a given medium then I believe it is correct.

As for the theoretical bit, asymmetry explains it perfectly. The only reason to why the heat pump can do this is because it is 'not only' compressing and then decompressing its working fluid, it uses its changed state to interact and absorb potential energy from the environment and brake the symmetric change back and forth in pressure, adding and absorbing temperature. This is not about "sneaking" in extra heat from the outside air, it is about changing the way symmetry or balance forces the different potentials to work.

And yeah Tony I would have appreciated it if you could share that data here  :)
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: angryScientist on July 10, 2009, 04:29:29 AM
Quote
are you saying that the set COP of a certain heat pump is based on an illusion or miscalculation based on the phases of the compression/decompression process and so leads to wrong numbers?
Ya, I'm saying that the extra heat absorbed in the phase change never enters the equation of compression/decompression.

Quote
Compression is necessary to initiate a change of state in the refrigerant, this compression adds energy to the system and heat to the medium.
Compression does add heat to the working fluid.
I want to make it clear that the gas after compression is still a gas but it's temperature is now raised above that of ambient. The gas being hotter than ambient is able to let it's heat naturally flow out into the ambient air.

Quote
Therefore, a heat-pump is transferring the 'sensible' heat from the ambient environment and adding what is referred to as the 'heat of compression' to that transfer medium, this is the 'latent' or 'hidden' heat that is only partially available as sensible temperature increase since work had to be done to achieve a change of state.
That's not quite correct. The latent heat was introduced in turning the refrigerant from liquid to gas. The gas enters the compressor gets compressed and the energy needed to compress the gas is added (a small fraction of total energy carried by the fluid). With the gas (and the energy it contains) compressed into a small space the energy is now dense enough to be considered sensible heat.

You must have the working fluid at a high enough pressure that it will be a liquid if it reaches ambient temperature.

Say that your heat pump was not fully "charged" with refrigerant and could only operate in the gas phase throughout the system. Then you could never achieve a COP greater than 1 because all the losses in the system.

I'll say it again, you must have a phase change on both the high pressure and low pressure sides of the compressor. The amount of latent heat absorbed does not affect the operation of the compressor. The compressor will never ever know how much heat was absorbed in turning the liquid to a gas (and it never will). The compressor only compresses gas. The phase change parts happen wholly outside the compressor.
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: ATT on July 10, 2009, 05:51:55 AM
Ya, I'm saying that the extra heat absorbed in the phase change never enters the equation of compression/decompression.

That's not quite correct. The latent heat was introduced in turning the refrigerant from liquid to gas. The gas enters the compressor gets compressed and the energy needed to compress the gas is added (a small fraction of total energy carried by the fluid). With the gas (and the energy it contains) compressed into a small space the energy is now dense enough to be considered sensible heat.

@angryScientist
I appreciate the detailed explanation, you appear to have an excellent grasp of the refrigeration cycle.

At this point, I think the next thing we are wanting to know would be: Is the published heat-output from a heat-pump the actual BTU quantity delivered into the space?

I would imagine that it is, otherwise how could one accurately size a system for a load?

In the commercial world, if it wasn't, it could be grounds for a lawsuit from the Architect, General contractor, HVAC sub and owner, wouldn't you think?

What's your experience with equipment ratings such as this?

Tony
.
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: ATT on July 10, 2009, 08:19:02 AM
.
@Nabo00o

I found the spec for an HP with a COP of 3.2 to use as an example, but others with a higher COP could be used, this is just the one that I happened on first.

--------------------------------------------
GE Zoneline Deluxe Series AZ39H15DAB
14,600 BTU Packaged Terminal Heat Pump Air Conditioner with 310 Max CFM, Freeze Sentinel and Heat Sentinel.

Capacity
CFM Indoor Fan High:.......................310
CFM Indoor Fan Low:........................260
Cooling E.E.R. (BTUH / Watt):............10.0/10.0
Dehumidification (pts./hr.):................4.5
Heating - Reverse Cycle - BTUH:........13,400/13,200
Sensible Heat Ratio at 230 Volts:........67%

Power / Ratings
Power Factor:....................................91/92
Voltage:............................................230V/208V
Cooling - Amperes; F.L. - Cooling:..........7.0/7.5
Cooling - Amperes; L.R.:.......................38.0
Cooling - Watts:.................................1,460/1,430
Heating - Reverse Cycle - COP:.............3.2/3.2
Heating - Reverse Cycle - Heater Amps:..5.8/6.3
Heating - Reverse Cycle - Heater Watts:.1,230/1,210
--------------------------------------------

Rated Capacity:
BTU/h (heat)....= 13,400 BTU
Watts (heat)....= (230v x 5.8A) 1334W

1-Watt............= 3.41  BTU per Watt
1/(3.41)...........= 0.293 Watt per BTU

13,400 x 0.2930 = 3926.2W (@ 100% eff conversion)

COP = 3926/1334 = 2.94 (we'll say 3.0)

What this tells us is that at 100% efficiency, we can convert 13,400 BTUs to 3926 Watts with an input of 1334 Watts...now we have to consider losses.

There are several conversion methods to choose from, I decided to try a Rankine Cycle prime-mover for the generator, just to see how it would stack-up.

Rankine-Cycle generators are used in industry to recoup energy that would otherwise be lost due to waste-heat, so they usually use a heat-transfer medium like water or water and ethylene glycol rather than air, as used by the heat-pump described above.

To use water rather than air to transfer the heat off the condenser, we have to replace the original air-over condenser coil with a tube-in-shell condenser. These are available off-the-shelf and will aid us in transfering the heat we need to the ORC boiler-coil.

You might be wondering why we can't just blow hot-air over a can of freon to boil it off, we could, but the losses would be tremendous and the use of water allows for efficient heat-storage, as well as some measure of control for predictable (and constant) expander performance.

One thing, the industrial versions of ORC (Organic Rankine Cycle) generators are geared for 'industrial' size projects and typically run around \$50K and up.

http://www.ormat.com

A while back, I found a complete paper on an ORC system in a size compatible with smaller heat-pumps, complete with parts list, specs and test results (University of Leige, 2007):

http://www.labothap.ulg.ac.be/cmsms/Staff/QuoilinS/TFE_SQ010607.pdf

It uses off the shelf components, has good monitoring instrumentation and can be built in a home-shop.

In matching the heat-pump to the ORC, we have to keep two things in mind:
-The ORC has to have the capacity to power the heat-pump.
-The heat-pump has to have the BTUs to power the ORC.

Since I chose this heat-pump randomly, it's not quite a match for the ORC described in the PDF, but it's 'close'.

This is where using the tube-in-shell condenser gives us some lattitude, we can 'store-ahead' to lead the potential heat requirements of the ORC.

If we used this set of components (and they were matched), we'd have this result:

(13,400 x 0.2930) = 3926.2W x .37 = 1452.6W

The efficiency of this particular ORC is 37%

The example heat-pump we're using requires 1334W to run.

Discounting the ORC pump and any unknown cumulative losses, we have a net-gain of 118.6W

That's with a HP COP of 3.0, using a nominal 1-ton HP.

No rigorous matching of HP to ORC was done simply because there are better COPs out there and this is just a thought-exercise to see if there is any viability in pursuing this idea.

On the face of it, it looks like there may be.

Tony
.

Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: ATT on July 10, 2009, 06:01:07 PM
As was mentioned earlier by another poster in this thread, ground-source heat-pumps are probably the way to go for this application.

A good example: WaterFurnace Enviosion GSHP COP of 5.6

This preclude jumping through all the hoops I mentioned in my last post, no need for tube-in-shell exchangers and all that, just get a GSHP water heater.

I'll run-down the data on this heat-pump when I get a minute.

Tony
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Nabo00o on July 10, 2009, 09:27:01 PM
Thank you Tony, this was very valuable information indeed!
Another aspect of the process which I think is very important for the efficiency is that instead of creating low volume but concentrated heat and cold, the heat pump should create high volume but low intensity heat, this will mean that the efficiency of the heat pump can be much larger.

The only thing we need then is a way to compress the heat in a concentrated and high temperature that can power the generator.
Also, remember that it is not only the btu's which are important, but also the btu's which it normally would take from the environment, this will also be used to power the cool side of the generator. So theoretically the COP should be the double of normal operation if both the cool and the hot side can be used at the same time, at least that is what I've read.

@ Angryscientist
I understand that you know this subject quite well, but when the total heat which a heat pump can supply is given, and it exceeds the electric power necessary to power it by a ratio which is the rated COP, how then can that be wrong, or something close to miss-information?
Remember, the fact that it extracts energy from another heat source is a plus in this system, so don't use that as an efficiency argument. Else I really want to know how this truly works, if it is just a stupid idea or not.
If it can work it could work really great, especially with the new experimental super-efficiency heat pumps.

Naboo
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: ATT on July 10, 2009, 09:47:03 PM
A few more direct-conversion of heat to electricity methods:

DARPA statement - 77% is Carnot-Limit
www.darpa.mil/dso/archives/dtec/index.htm

Thermoacoustic - approx 30%:
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070603225026.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoacoustic_hot_air_engine
www.olemiss.edu/depts/ncpa/BasRes/ThermoIndex.htm

Thermoacoustic - possible 60%:
www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4243793.html

Convection (CECC) unknown% alledgedly sidesteps Carnot Limit
www.globalwarmingsolutions.co.uk/convective_energy_conversion_cycle.htm

Thermoelectric - 6-10%
www.technologyreview.com/Energy/21125/

Thermophotovoltaic - unknown%
www.macrovu.com/image/PVT/NASA/RPC/uc%3DThermoVoltaic.v3.pdf

Thermoorganic - unknown%
berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/02/15_heatelectricity.shtml

Thermo-alkali-metal - unknown% alledgedly sidesteps Carnot Limit
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3864/is_200009/ai_n8926045/

Peltier-Seebeck Thermoelectric - 5-10%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_cooling

Thermionics - unknown%
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2001/B/200112962.html

And the list goes on...

Tony
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: angryScientist on July 10, 2009, 11:02:04 PM
@ATT
Quote
Is the published heat-output from a heat-pump the actual BTU quantity delivered into the space?
Umm? On that, I'm not sure. Maybe I don't understand the rating system.

@Nabo00o
Quote
I understand that you know this subject quite well, but when the total heat which a heat pump can supply is given, and it exceeds the electric power necessary to power it by a ratio which is the rated COP, how then can that be wrong, or something close to miss-information?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not an expert. Just curious, like you.
I think of it like as "heat mover" more than anything else. To heat a room you buy 1 unit of energy from the power company and use it to move 3 units (which you don't pay for) of energy from the outside.

)It doesn't cost anything to move heat (in the way it wants to go)
)It cost as least as much to squeeze it into a small space as you get.
)You can use the latent (hidden) heat trick to do more work than you pay for. (Rule above no longer applies)

It's no trick. You get more than you pay for (period). It's because you don't pay anything to move the heat that is hidden!
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Nabo00o on July 10, 2009, 11:33:14 PM
@ATTUmm? On that, I'm not sure. Maybe I don't understand the rating system.

@Nabo00oDon't get me wrong, I'm not an expert. Just curious, like you.
I think of it like as "heat mover" more than anything else. To heat a room you buy 1 unit of energy from the power company and use it to move 3 units (which you don't pay for) of energy from the outside.

)It doesn't cost anything to move heat (in the way it wants to go)
)It cost as least as much to squeeze it into a small space as you get.
)You can use the latent (hidden) heat trick to do more work than you pay for. (Rule above no longer applies)

It's no trick. You get more than you pay for (period). It's because you don't pay anything to move the heat that is hidden!

Well there you have it, this is what really drives me in this research. Although you and most other say that a heat pump 'moves' heat, and of course that fits very well with the name, I think the correct thing to say is that it 'separates' or 'splits' up a certain temperature into two different temperature potentials whose energy is the number of the COP times the energy input. Okey maybe not the best description possible but that potentials is 'real' energy, and is some times more than the other real input (input of the operator!).

I'll see if can't find the latest updates on high-efficient heat pumps, it could be interesting to see where the present technology is at the moment  ;)

Nab
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: angryScientist on July 10, 2009, 11:44:12 PM
If your thinking about how to convert ambient heat to usable power then Cool!
I have been thinking about that one for a long time. Here is some more fuel for the fire;

I think it has been done. I think of a nuclear submarine. If they are only 50% efficient and they dump half of the ~100MW power their generating in heat. That would heat up the sea water around it dramatically! That's bad in several ways:
(1. Warm water will rise changing the natural circulation.(Bad)
(2. Polar missions will melt a lot of ice.(Bad, but make the tax payers pay for the stupidity of paying previously.)
(3. Warm water will emit deep infrared, detectable from space.(Unacceptable)

If those submarines are dumping that much heat into the bottom of the oceans and under the polar ice caps then WHAT THE @!%\$ ARE the politicians doing scarring the population and wanting more money to fix the problem? They are the problem. And they want more money for what?!?!

Sorry. Got a bit riled up. Don't like paying for things that are not for my good.

I don't see a problem with the idea of an ambient heat engine.

I think the entire engine should be held at a temperature lower than ambient, surrounded by good insulation. Call that the new sink. Ambient heat flows in only though the engine. Heat not converted by engine is removed by heat pump.
Engine 50% efficient
Heat Pump 300% efficient

What's the problem?
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: infringer on July 11, 2009, 01:23:59 AM
Exactly!

You hit the nail on the head conversion so far the best idea I have seen is sterling engine...

But... there may be a material that expands with heat quite a bit and shrinks in lower temperatures I am sure of it ...

In which case if we could use a piezoelectric coupling with this material we could obtain energy output as the device shrinks and expands if made correctly ;)

That would be as close to direct conversion as I would think expansion and contraction. Piezoelectric is likely the way to go I often wondered why people did not try to make solar cells for rochell salt crystals?

Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: ATT on July 11, 2009, 06:42:44 AM
You hit the nail on the head conversion so far the best idea I have seen is sterling engine...
Maybe, take a look at the chart below. Now take a look at the 'expander temperature' and see where the temp line crosses the efficiency line at about 200 deg F, that's about what you get out of a heat pump (and that's with a slow (high TD) condenser-loop).

You might be able to offset this a little and increase the differential by stealing some 'cold' from the evap-side of the HP, but for ambient operation, you're looking at about 10% if an HP is the heat source (one of the reasons I leveraged refrigerant properties, again, by going to an ORC).

(Source: http://www.proepowersystems.com/Stirling%20Comparison.pdf)
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: ATT on July 11, 2009, 07:14:52 AM
.
In which case if we could use a piezoelectric coupling with this material we could obtain energy output as the device shrinks and expands if made correctly

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070603225026.htm

Maybe 60% possible:
www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4243793.html

Check out some of the other links on the previous page.
.
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Nabo00o on July 11, 2009, 01:42:47 PM
@Angryscientist
If you mean that I want to extract energy from the heat of the environment then no.
This is what the main conflict in this whole tread has been about, of course we could use the energy of heat in the atmosphere to generate electricity and mechanical motion, it is recharged by the sun every second!

However it is not what the heat pump does, it uses energy to make two potentials of temperature without spending energy directly to the amount of potential energy produced, it is a whole different story!
Also, if no temperature was ever absorbed and emitted in the heat exchangers no potential would be produced and the system would be in a state of symmetry. But because of the changes in temperature not directly tied to the pressure created by the compressor, an asymmetrical potential source can be generated and used, and this is what makes a heat pump special, at least from my perspective.

Of course there's nothing wrong in draining the heat of our planet a little, it would probably help it, but I do not believe that this is what the heat pump does, remember, it creates both heat and cold, not just one, and this does also make the system balance and fit the extended 4-space conservation of energy.
We are not using physical energy here, we are in fact using time!

Nab
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: ATT on July 11, 2009, 05:28:51 PM
.
However it is not what the heat pump does, it uses energy to make two potentials of temperature without spending energy directly to the amount of potential energy produced.....an asymmetrical potential source can be generated.....remember, it creates both heat and cold, not just one.....We are not using physical energy here, we are in fact using time!

@Nabo00o
I like your idea of investigating the possibilities in taking advantage of the current state of efficiency in heat heat-pumps, but I can't handle the ideas you have of why a heat-pump does what it does.

Look, there isn't any hidden esoterica involved with any of this. There's no symmetry/asymmetry, no splitting of heat and cold, no temporal displacement, no 'creation' of heat or cold and most importantly, no 'free-lunch'.

The initial efficiencies are the result of leveraging the properties of refrigerants. The gains that have occured over the years are cheifly the the result of increased motor efficiency, exchanger optimization, refrigerant engineering and better controls.

When I started in this field in 1972, heat-pumps had a COP of 2.0, it's taken 37 years for design improvements and technology advances to get that COP pumped up to 5+.

Any current potential for getting the 'snake to eat it's tail' and have energy left over is the result of incremental improvements made by engineers that subscribe to the predictable, calculatable, well-known laws of thermodynamics.

That's the way I approach it; the quantities we're dealing with are measurable, the resulting values can be plugged-in to mathematical statements, the results can be extrapolated over a range of conditions.

Before fashioning an alternate view, it would be useful to get a good grounding in the currently accepted methodology to actually understand 'why' those of us that have made a living doing this over these many years accept the current view.

Having said all that, tell me about your guitar and your farm. I still have my '68 355, HD28 and strat but haven't used any of them in years (I'm just getting too old...).

Nabo00o, your idea really is a good one given the current state of the art, I would never have considered it if you hadn't brought it to our attention.
.

Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: nueview on July 11, 2009, 08:05:14 PM
hi nabooo

you seem to have gotten the idea of how energy works but i noticed that nobody stated that if you raise the temperature of a liquid and it takes on energy to become a gas that the rise in temperature and pressure will continue to raise the temperature and pressure although it gives a diminishing return it has been put to good use on the air car system by holding the pressure at the top of the stroke for a time to gain efficiency and power.
a sterling engine is a good idea but pressure blead off the system when hot could add energy to the system and when the system cools the vaccuum could be used for a restart of the system so all and all you got a good idea.
there is a swedish company that makes large sterling engines for submarines but can't seem to find the address right now.

martin
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Nabo00o on July 12, 2009, 03:29:48 AM
ATT you're right, I need to keep my feet on the ground. But just so you know, I have have always looked upon myself as a human who wants to study and know things, not just get convinced by some fantastic idea and then just go for it. All that about symmetry and asymmetry is deeper than you could think, it goes not only for every possible free energy device in existence, asymmetry is also the primary requirement to create any kind of force, and so also to do any kind of work, weather positive or negative. If two forces are equal or in symmetry, then no net work can be done.
Sorry if this kind of talk bores you, since you obviously knows the practical workings of the machine well.
I do however wonder if there is a theoretical bit which the scientists and engineers who have created todays modern heat-pumps have forgot to include, or to take into account.
For example, a REAL COP of 5 is not just about saving in on inefficiencies is it? I do believe there is more.

About other stuff, that guitar was really pretty cheap  :D I bought it, an amplifier and a soundbox in a combined package, non of them was really that good, but I am really happy that I spent some money on it :)
Our farm is really my grandparents farm, we don't work with that anymore, but my dad grows and sells all kinds of flowers and bushes.  We got a pretty big garage/workshop and my granddad also used to collect all kinds of metal parts, old machines, steel plates, anything really which could be used for something.
I guess I'm pretty lucky to have all that available now, even though it is without any kind of order and looks like what many might have called a junk storage.

@Martin
Good to see you here!
This continuation of temperature and pressure, is it related to the sudden phase change instead of a gradual one, how exactly is it used? Thanks.
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: nueview on July 12, 2009, 06:10:24 AM

here is what i know about it from studying and a few tests that seem to prove the MIDI air car point in germany about the turn of the century they used these engines for mining trains as there were no combustion gasses to poison the miners just air they were very efficient and were used in the new york subway for many years the air car engine uses a cammed link arm so as to delay the stroke at top dead center for about 70 degrees of the rotation as the gas is put under pressure it gives up heat this raises the pressure and makes more heat and more pressure as the piston passes top dead center the gas is gaining pressure faster than the poston is traveling until the link arm breaks over and the power stroke really begins the air cannot be used again for another stroke as the energy removed from the gas does not return to the gas that fast so someone wrote that there was a way to electrostatically energize this spent gas and get more power from it on consecutive uses but there was some kind of patent disbute and havent heard any more about it there is a way to compress air into a tank with ventury action but forget what it is called it was used on the subway trains it is very interesting to study.
there was also a device invented back in the thirties by bell labs called a choke checker i have one guess that really dates me but you put 125 ponds air pressure in it at the 1/3 point and the air spins along the tube at the outside of the tube you get cold air out and the center tube that comes out the other end gives you hot air the old cars had a bimetal choke adjustment and this would make it react very cheap and pretty neat little device it works on air speed weight and the vortex principle.

Martin
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Nabo00o on July 14, 2009, 01:00:22 AM
I just want to say that all critics and criticism is welcome, working out a way to use the power of a heat pump to create useful work is not a result wishful thinking :D By that I mean that I and everybody else here can obviously be wrong, we don't know for sure before we can test these ideas, maybe theoretically first and then practically at the end.

I don't want any preassumed ideology to block the true practical reality, whatever it may be. Often it is like that in reality, we all want the same but have different ways to do and explain it. Then misunderstanding and ill-interpreted ideas can arise. I just hope that we can all cooperate here, because I think that we do all have the same common goal: To make available a source of free energy. Free as in free speech, free of cost (long term cost) and free of limitations and restrictions...

Naboo
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: ATT on July 14, 2009, 06:46:00 PM
.
@Nabo00o
With the farm, you have the perfect basis for self-sufficiency, a perfect setup!

Since several posters mentioned that Stirling engines might be a more efficient means of converting heat energy to mechanical/electrical energy, I had a look at some of what's out there. I don't have any first-hand experience with stirlings so please post if you can provide better information.

This is not exhaustive, but my sampling of information about stirling engines, so far, doesn't show anything commercially available that would lend itself to this project (maybe a custom-build or prototype may be available).

The best actual application-efficiency I've seen is from Sunpower who has a 95-Watt model with 36% efficiency, which is a prototype and not large enough to be practical, although they do have a 1KW at lower efficiency, which is still not large enough.

Apparently Dean Kamen has been working on a stirling for a few years and has a patent, no news of it's commercial availability yet.

There has been no significant adoption of stirling technology by industry.

By contrast, there -has- been significant adoption of Rankine Cycle freon expanders by industry.

There are plenty of good (stirling) ideas out there but apparently none are good enough to pursue commercially and they haven't managed to find a solid niche of acceptance.

On the face of it, the idea of a sterling operating on a temperature differential seems perfectly suited for high-efficiency conversion when coupled to a heat-pump, but the efficiencies are theoretical at this point. Practical efficiencies have to be measured and that requires engines with the capacity to turn a generator with the umph to power an HP, sterlings of sufficient size to do this aren't  available off the shelf.

http://www.stirlingengine.com/kamen/dean_kamen_patent.html
http://www.stirlingengine.com/faq/one?scope=public&faq_id=1
http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca/QTStirling.html
http://www.sunpower.com/lib/sitefiles/pdf/productlit/Engine%20Brochure.pdf
.
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: ATT on July 14, 2009, 06:48:16 PM
Edit:
Deleted a double-post of the above.
Tony
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Nabo00o on July 14, 2009, 10:01:15 PM
You're right, the first and most troublesome problem is to conquer all the inefficiencies connected to making heat a viable source of useful energy. So there is the big problem, I guess doing it the way I first proposed was primarily to prove a theoretical point, that an easy and understandable cycle could actually be used in commercial power-plants. I think however there are many more heat power techniques which could prove to have much better efficiencies, for example the equalizer method described at the aircaraccess page.

This seems to be practically the same thing as using a heat pump, but instead of using pressure to alter the temperature, it uses temperature to alter pressure. As I have understood it, by equalizing the pressure between a small and large tank of air within a small amount of time, they will not only contain the same pressure, but the increase of pressure inside the small tank will also increase its temperature, which again leads to an increases in pressure. This is not a perpetual or self-increasing feedback process, but is a results of mixing two gases of the same temperature but different pressure, the end result is an increase in temperature, an therefore also a slight increase in pressure, but only for a moment. When the temperature has equalized again to its environment no increase of temperature will exist.

I am not sure, but I think this should be an important focus in this tread, even if it was mainly about the heat pump. The pressure versus temperature process is what interests me  :)

Naboo

Edit: I wish I could have altered the original topic name....
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: ATT on July 15, 2009, 03:26:39 AM
@Nabo00o

I'm posting a couple of charts that show the relationships you have to consider when dealing with 'air'.

The first (below) shows the change in air density as a result of the change in both temperature and pressure, obviously this can be used in a reciprocal fashion to show changes in any one of the three induced by changes in any other of the three.

Since air is a molecule made up of mostly nitrogen and oxygen, it has the same properties as any other molecule that has mass, i.e. it has weight, is acted on by gravity, reacts to heating and/or cooling by going into a more or less energetic state, conducts heat, etc. Air is treated as a fluid in mechanical systems (air-handling, HVAC, etc).
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: ATT on July 15, 2009, 03:28:15 AM
@Nabo00o

This second (psychometric) chart can be used to study the heat content of air specific to various environmental conditions. It is often used to extrapolate the heat-load imposed on air conditioning equipment but can, conversely, also be used to find the amount of heat available to heat-pumps.

I've colored the parameters used and presented an example that is easy to follow, you just need the temperature and humidity to deduce the enthalpy (heat content) and CFM required to deliver the desired amount of heat-transfer.

Edit: the chart was too big, will include a link after uploading to alternate server (have to fix a wrong-calculation, too).
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Nabo00o on July 15, 2009, 04:40:12 AM
THanks for the chart, I know I have read somewhere else that if you heat up a certain volume of air from 0 to 100 degrees Celsius (and that it starts at normal water level air pressure) then its volume would increase with about 17 percent, I discussed this in the Maxwell demon tread with some other folks.

Also, it seems that I forgot to mention maybe the most important reason to why the equalizing method works (at least the way I think it works). You know what the water hammer effect is right? It is what happens when water flow is abruptly stopped. Since flowing water has a lot of momentum once started it will not just remove that magically if forced, the kinetic energy of the momentum will be converted directly into pressure, until it is somehow absorbed and dies out (in strong pipes this can happen with a lot of vibration instead of a bulk in the pipe).

Air does also have mass and thus momentum, even if it is a lot less than that of water, a pulse-jet does however prove the fact that it will tend to stay in motion for a while if it is moving, and therefore also resists a change.

Okey, the theory of the pulsing equalizer could be like this: If a large tank of compressed air 8 times that of the atmosphere is suddenly connected to a smaller tank or pipe so that no substantial loss of pressure in respect to the large tank does occur when it fills the smaller tank, an interesting but short lived effect can be seen: Air has momentum, and, as the pressure of the small tank approaches that of the large tank the momentum of the air forces its pressure to increase further. Eventually the kinetic energy of the air will have been almost 100% converted into pressure, and that pressure will be much higher that of potential pressure source.

Now if there was only a normal open connection between the two that increase of pressure would have gone back to its source. But, if there had been placed a one-way-valve there to allow air only to enter but not to leave the excess pressure would stay there.
As far as I could understand there should be two more valves there, one to let in normally pressurized air and one to send it back into the large tank. The idea being that the high pressure air and normal pressure air mixes and are then let back in, increasing the total amount of pressure and thus also the air in the tank.
This will then with minimal controlling losses be a completely self-filling air tank.

The key word here as in many other "smart" technologies is 'sharp gradients'.
If this was done too slowly we could never have captured that effect, if we allowed the kinetic energy to be absorbed and then balanced no net change would occur, if we stop that symmetrical balancing function of the gas with a unidirectional pulse (one way only..... some think Tesla now I'm sure ;D)  then a asymmetrical change in pressure will occur.

So, if we want excess energy in a system, we need to keep the usual balance or symmetry away from canceling out its available true source of energy (the ether) and allow for an asymmetrical energy exchange between the physical dimension and the ether energy dimension.

This is what I believe Tony, and I don't think it sounds very unscientific, or highly improbable, that the physically observable world isn't the only thing in existence. Try to explain thoughts, or light for that matter!
Light is a wave just like sound and water-waves are also waves, and they DO require a medium in other to travel...

Bye, Naboo
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: ATT on July 15, 2009, 07:30:53 AM
.
This is what I believe Tony, and I don't think it sounds very unscientific, or highly improbable, that the physically observable world isn't the only thing in existence.

OK, so how do we reduce this theory to 'nuts and bolts'? What's our starting-point?

You know, I'm not necessarily a die-hard physics evangelist; as I posted before, there's a lot more science doesn't know than that which it does.

However, if there's a demonstrable effect that has been overlooked (key word here is 'demonstrable'...), then the reasons for that outcome would have to be discovered and it might very well be that your intuitive viewpoint would be validated if this were the case.

Rarely is any 'breakthrough' the result of a single 'ah ha!' moment, it usually a culmination of small achievements, ultimately linked together to provide the next 'killer app' that no one saw coming, previously.

Often these smaller successes point the way to the next step as a project 'evolves'.

In any case, intuition, creativity and insight are integral to discovery. Remaining open to alternate possibilities is important and recognizing the value of not jumping to premature conclusions as to the nature of -anything- (remaining unbiased) is a must.

This is especially the case when the concept of 'belief' enters the scene; do the experiments, log the results, extrapolate the possibilities based on those results, continually form opinions (and re-form opinions) as discovery progresses until you have accomplished what you set out to do or found there is no solution in this direction.

In any event, all parties come away with having learned a great deal, there are no 'losers'.

Tony
.

Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Nabo00o on July 15, 2009, 03:48:50 PM
Agreed  :)

Thing is, this is not something I have to proof (or even can at this moment), as always before you start doing something practical, be it an experiment or something to make, you need to have some kind of of theory or assumption to base on your work.

But over to the experiments and proofs, I have read and learned enough by now to be capable of producing an electromagnetic unit which could extract energy out of the seemingly emptiness of space.
Problem is, I don't have all the equipment and faculty necessary to do it in a scientific verifiable experiment, also, I don't have a lot of money to spend.

This in itself is not a proof necessary to convince you, but it is a honest attempt to enlighten you.
I have never started building on larger projects without having some kind of theory and evidence to back it up. Still, I believe it is when we take those risks and make a go for something unknown that we can get a chance of exploring a whole new territory outside of what is known. Many of the big (practical) leaps done in science isn't done by following the standard textbooks. To discover something unknown we need to look beyond the borders of our present knowledge...

Still, some have shown the way forward towards the new unified or "united" science like Nikola Tesla and Albert Einstein, both of which believed firmly in the existence of an ether. While Einstein said that the theory of relativity without the ether would be impossible, Nikola Tesla proved it in his many experiments, proving, that electricity in its fundamental nature is in fact nothing electrical, nothing consisting of electrons, but of a massless ether gas which he could in fact observe in his laboratory.

If you are interested in Tesla's experiments I suggest (like many others) that you read Gerry Vassilatos book: Secrets of Cold War Technology: Project Haarp and Beyond.

Naboo
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: ATT on July 16, 2009, 02:06:34 AM
.
Quote
you need to have some kind of of theory or assumption to base on your work.
How about letting the theory express itself from the effects realized by your work? But I do know what you mean, you can't concoct things aimlessly, you need some hint of direction to start with, an initial goal from which there are, invariably, 'spinoffs'. Often the 'spinoffs' become the new goal.

Quote
I have read and learned enough by now to be capable of producing an electromagnetic unit which could extract energy out of the seemingly emptiness of space.
Cool! In 1957 (I was 10) I took the insides out of a transistor radio and put together a 'powerless' radio that didn't need an antenna or ground (of course it only got one station...). What kind of power-output you think yours will get? Any prototype data yet?

Quote
This in itself is not a proof necessary to convince you, but it is a honest attempt to enlighten you.
Yes, any enlightenment is greatfully accepted.

Quote
Many of the big (practical) leaps done in science isn't done by following the standard textbooks.
Sure they are. Even Eienstein and Tesla built on the science and math background they aquired at university. You have to invest in gaining enough background to acheive a position from which to leverage present knowlege into new ideas. Edison was self-taught, but he embellished his own knowlege by surrounding himself with 'top-talent' (In fact, Tesla was in Edison's 'stable' for a time).

Quote
To discover something unknown we need to look beyond the borders of our present knowledge...
That's what science does every day. CERN is a multi billion dollar 'what-if' experiment, they have no idea of what they might discover.

So far, building on 'textbook' knowlege, science has made inroads to teleportation, time-travel, invisability, multi-dimentional existance, psychokinesis, varying the speed of light and more. All of the above mentioned were considered 'Sci-Fi' or 'impossible' even ten years ago, now they're formal papers in peer-reviewed journals.

Quote
Tesla and Albert Einstein, both of which believed firmly in the existence of an ether.
Many at the turn of the century used the term 'ether' interchangeably with 'space', 'air', and 'atmosphere. A hundred years ago, these terms were semantically equivalent.

In the case where 'ether' refers to an unknown all-encompassing medium from which all things emanate, there may actually be some recently discovered evidence for this (provided, again, by 'textbook' scientists), but it may be even too wierd for the etherial 'true-believers' to wrap their heads around since it's implications would reduce the entire universe to 'Tron' level, but that deserves another topic altogether.

Naboo, you're a smart person, go for all the exposure you can get to electronics, physics and math. Do the work, run the experiments, 'pay your dues'. If you like hard work on the road to new discovery, you're heading in the right direction.

Tony
.
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: infringer on July 16, 2009, 03:54:09 AM
Quote
Cool! In 1957 (I was 10) I took the insides out of a transistor radio and put together a 'powerless' radio that didn't need an antenna or ground (of course it only got one station...). What kind of power-output you think yours will get? Any prototype data yet?

Not to hijack the thread but could you share the ins and out with us in another thread I hear an awful lot of these claims so please do share the process.
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: ATT on July 16, 2009, 06:30:02 AM
Not to hijack the thread but could you share the ins and out with us in another thread I hear an awful lot of these claims so please do share the process.
@infringer
Don't get excited, think 'xtal-radio'. Take a ferrite-loop antenna, use the p-n junction of a transistor as a detector, wire an earphone across it (a resistor to develop the sig helps a little), shove everything in a 3"x2"x1/2" cardboard box and if you lived in L.A. in the '50s, you'd pick up at least one of the three major 50KW rock stations in the area: KDAY, KFWB or KRLA (maybe KHJ, but that wasn't a rock-station back then, so it didn't count).

No power, no external antenna, no ground, just a lot of RF - you pick up the strongest signal.

I don't really think a 10 year old kid messing around with the equivalent of a xtal radio constitutes much in the way of a 'claim', however.

Tony
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Nabo00o on July 16, 2009, 01:46:35 PM
It sounds a bit like a crystal radio, only they use a special crystal diode as a detector.

This electromagnetic unit I'm talking about is a direct result of reading and understanding Alexander Frolov's papers, specifically this: http://alexfrolov.narod.ru/work.htm (http://alexfrolov.narod.ru/work.htm)

What I've been searching for most of the time while looking at free energy is a theory which can explain fairly simple how and why different generator prototypes can work, and what the underlying principle behind it is.
When we understand the core of it we do not need to be limited to a specific design, and it can also help us in our understanding of other inventions previously thought impossible to comprehend.

The reason I mentioned the electric unit was because it is related to the heat pump in its asymmetry of operation and proves the concept's direct connection with practical models.
I guess I should start a tread dedicated to help bringing both this theory and its practical models into reality ;)

So... what do you think about this tread? Do you think it is worthy of continuing at all, maybe by focusing on the compressed air part, or maybe it is to be considered obsolete :D

btw, farming is great! Not with animals though....
Nab
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: ATT on July 16, 2009, 04:43:57 PM
Quote
It sounds a bit like a crystal radio, only they use a special crystal diode as a detector.
Of course, it -is- a xtal radio. it doesn't take anything special to act as a detector, you can use a diode or a transistor (my first one was a razor-blade and a pencil lead). In the old days they used galina crystals and a catwisker.

Quote
btw, farming is great! Not with animals though....
Back in the early '70s I had goats, chickens, ducks and a good sized garden on five acres. Had to milk the goats twice a day, freshen them in the spring, hassle with hawks and coyotes that would try to get the chickens, tend the garden, keep the compost going, bring in the harvest, winter over some establishe crops, keep the irrigation systems and the well up, repair fences pens and outbuildings, work at a job during the day and go to school at night on the GI bill.

I think the accepted term is WMFAO, but I'd like to do it again (the farming part). I'd like to unplug as much as possible from dependence on externally provided resources, including utilities, water and food.

Energy is a big part of that but FE isn't required to make any of it happen, there's alternative means (especially now) that let anybody with the desire to unplug 'cut the chord'.

On the thread; hey, it's 'your-baby', where do you want it to go?

Keeping these things 'focused' is always a chore but you don't want to exclude any helpful info, even if it's marginal to the main thrust.

Tony

Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Tempest on July 17, 2009, 02:06:44 AM
Hi guys, I have been reading this thread for the last couple of day and this popped in to my head. Will take no offence to improvements to the design.

@ATT from your back ground, you should be able to do some calculations on this, although it could take a lot of time.

There are two loops in this system. The Freon loop which starts at cylinders 1 and 2. These cylinders are heated by solar or some thing. (At first I was just looking at designing a solar motor). At top dead center the valve closes. After the crank is past top dead center and it is pulling some vacuum, the injector fires and put some liquid Freon into the cylinder. The heated cylinder expands the Freon and pushes the cylinder down, turning the crank. At 180 degrees the valve opens and exhaust the Freon to the condenser which drains into the liquid tank.

Note 1: set Freon pressure to about 5 degree above ambient temp.

The second part was an add-on after I was reading this thread and researching air engines. Cylinders 3 and 4 are used to bring in ambient air and pressurize it to heat up cylinders 1 and 2, then exhaust in to the air. Or you could use it to cool the condenser after it depressurizes.

Note 2: nothing is to scale, the cylinders could be different sizes and the crank is definitely not the right size, comparatively.
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: ATT on July 17, 2009, 04:24:34 AM
.
Hi guys, I have been reading this thread for the last couple of day and this popped in to my head. Will take no offence to improvements to the design.
@tempest

Nice schematic, good detail.

Tempest, since you're getting into Organic Rankine Cycle here, you might want to have a look at another thread I'm on (Tony Triola: it's short, only three pages), it'll help to get us all on the 'same page' with ORC and maybe give you a little insight to the ups and downs of getting in to all this:

http://biodiesel.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/269605551/m/2551084412

http://www.labothap.ulg.ac.be/cmsms/Staff/QuoilinS/TFE_SQ010607.pdf

It takes us through the cycle with a rotary expander and is pretty complete.

Reciprocating expanders such as the one you show are popular too, just depends on the application.

What you want to keep in mind is the word 'leverage' (not necessarily in the Archimedian sense...), which is to say, use as much off-the-shelf stuff as you can to cobble up your proof of concept so you don't tie-up your talents reinventing the proverbial 'wheel'.

But, hey, yeah, check out that other thread to see what a couple of us were batting back and forth earlier, there might be some resources listed there you can use (in this case, you will be 'leveraging' work on this idea somebody else has already done, it might save you some hassle...).

Tony
.
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Tempest on July 17, 2009, 01:08:32 PM
excellent links, thank you very much. and sorry if I was off topic
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Nabo00o on January 24, 2010, 07:17:54 PM
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?

Julian
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: sparks on January 24, 2010, 11:45:24 PM
The phase change you refer to is just used to decrease the size of the machine.    The action of the compressor is to lower the vapor pressure over the top of the liquid so that it can boil easier.  As the atomized mist is sprayed into the evaporator the liquid boils at a decreased temperature.  The atoms leaving the liquid drops the thermal energy remaining in the liquid state as there are fewer collisions between atoms because there arent as many in there to bang around.  The compressor must continue to maintain a low vapor pressure or the flow of heat is now absorbed by the gas molecules and the liquid and there are soon just as many gas atoms condensing as there are evaporating.  A good heat pump would be operated above the boiling point of the refridgerant.  The pressure would rise and this pressue could then drive a piston.  The piston would have to be retained while the pressure built up.  The heated gas upon release of the piston would loose its kinetic energy and the interior temperature of the heat exchanger would drop.  This would allow for the effortless return of the piston where it would wait for enough thermal energy to raise the pressure on the piston head to the trigger actuation.  The materials of the heat exchanger could be such that even though the temperature drops drastically on movement of the piston it does not allow the transfer of heat fast enough into the gas which allows for a window of oppurtunity for the piston to return to a few degrees after top dead center.  This machine already exists and could have been refridgerating our food for many years know.  It was designed by Lord Kelvin.  But they chose not to do build commercialize it for obvious reasons.
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: angryScientist 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?

Julian

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.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7814.msg192994#msg192994 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7814.msg192994#msg192994)
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: sparks 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.
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Nabo00o 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?

Julian
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: mscoffman 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.

:S:MarkSCoffman
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: sparks 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.
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Tom Booth 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 ?

http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1900-06-00.htm

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.
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: PulseFuelNerd 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
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Tom Booth 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.
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: PulseFuelNerd 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.
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 on December 27, 2012, 07:52:53 AM
http://www.rapidtables.com/convert/power/Watt_to_BTU.htm
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Tom Booth 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:

http://www.theimagingsource.biz/en/technology/ambientheatelectricity/ (http://www.theimagingsource.biz/en/technology/ambientheatelectricity/)
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: PulseFuelNerd 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?

Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Tom Booth 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. )

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: pix 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.
Regards,
Pix
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: BobSmall on December 04, 2013, 05:48:09 AM
@pix

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.

Conclusion:
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.

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

vs

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."

"AND"

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.
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: DaS Energy on December 04, 2013, 07:32:54 AM
;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.
Regards,
Pix

Hello Pix that you talk of is correct. Using refrigerant R744 (CO2) the heat source must be above -30*C. Absorption refrigerator mechanics provides the driver gas cooling without assistance.  Energy to electricity conversion is done by 82% efficient Pelton turbine. Power production is 720 watts for each litre per second at 9 bar pressure. Home made simplicity done by cut and weld of pipe.
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: lancaIV on December 04, 2013, 12:21:51 PM
DasEnergy : you are not forgotten ;)
But it is also Imperative to the australian Youth (DasEnergy macht Kinder froh und Erwachsene ebenso) and their international neighbour
to work on this field,together.

Sincerely
OCWL
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: profitis on December 04, 2013, 08:42:06 PM
greater than 100% efficiency heat pump? You only have to look at the karpen battery.in that cell you will have decompression of oxygen gas at one electrode and compression at the other.one electrode cools down while the other heats up,spontaneous.a fantastic smash of the thermodynamics laws which no-one can contest and when i say no-one i mean no-one.
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: DaS Energy on December 05, 2013, 12:55:44 AM
Hello OCWL,

" Imperative to the australian Youth (DasEnergy macht Kinder froh und Erwachsene ebenso) and their international neighbour to work on this field,together."

Most happy to assist. Turbine and casing are off the shelf, however the frictionless DaS Compressor is home built. Its centre piece is the turbine shaft.

Regards

Peter
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: markdansie on December 05, 2013, 03:22:44 AM
More energy and out is myth. It is real when it comes to the calculations for the transitions, but as everyone found out in history it can not be converted to mechanical energy, i.e. the cop 3x can not be translated as it only relates to phase change calculations. ,H vae seen this fail many times in practice.
Sorry for the bad news, its just the way it is
Mark
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: DaS Energy on December 05, 2013, 03:28:00 AM
Hello Mark,

"More energy and out is myth. It is real when it comes to the calculations for the transitions, but as everyone found out in history it can not be converted to mechanical energy, i.e. the cop 3x can not be translated as it only relates to phase change calculations. ,H vae seen this fail many times in practice.  Sorry for the bad news, its just the way it is Mark"

Example one litre of gas at 100 psi. The gas pushing on water. Pelton turbine wheel firstly converts 82% of the up water force to electricity.  Francis turbine next converts 82% of the down water force to electricity. Gas turbine then converts 60% of the leaving gas force to electricity. Total energy conversion 222%.
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: lancaIV on December 05, 2013, 04:42:24 AM
greater than 100% efficiency heat pump? You only have to look at the karpen battery.in that cell you will have decompression of oxygen gas at one electrode and compression at the other.one electrode cools down while the other heats up,spontaneous.a fantastic smash of the thermodynamics laws which no-one can contest and when i say no-one i mean no-one.

Repeating:
As source:
and the thermoelectric converter-based by Karpen technology research- by the romenian Prof. Dr. Matei Marinescu

http://www.faxmedia.ro/personalitatea-zilei/matei-marinescu/152.html (http://www.faxmedia.ro/personalitatea-zilei/matei-marinescu/152.html)Personality Day - Matthew Marinescu Academician Matthew Marinescu was born on April 1, 1903 in Bucharest .... A few months after his 80 years on August 28, 1983 passed away Romanian scientist , academician Matthew Marinescu . He was born on April 1, 1903 in Bucharest. He attended Polytechnic School of capital which he graduated in 1926. A scholarship Directorate General P.T.T. gave him the opportunity to specialize in technical high school weak currents Telecommunications in Paris , which has obtained a degree two years later . In the laboratories of the schools achieve their phone and also the first invention was patented in Romania , England and Germany, microphone mulitcelular . It is also a time to study ultrasound specialize in automatic telephone exchange in London , because in 1942 to acquire doctoral degree and doctor of technical sciences lecturer in Bucharest with the thesis " Contributions to achieve thermionic amplifiers " . In 1948 it became member of the Academy and is also known elected member of Electricians in Paris society . It worked for a while , since 1929 , the automation of telephone exchanges in the country and has achieved great practical utility in combating disturbances suffered from the line. He made ​​contributions in a broad range of technical issues , including electric cars, sonicitatea , Automatic , thermoelectricity , cells internal combustion electrocomunicaţiile and electroacoustic . His " Microdifuzorul " (1932 ) was awarded the " Gheorghe Lazar " of the Romanian Academy . Matthew Marinescu has developed a new theory of thermoelectric phenomena and discovered a " thermoelectric effect " that bears his name . Holder of patents in Romania , UK , USA, Germany for a new type of " Oscilomotor " ( alternative linear motion electric motor ) - applied to compressors , refrigerators, etc.de also a new type of electric generator he called " thermoelectric " state gave all its patents for inventions . He is the author of a treatise " Broadcast Electrodynamics " (1957 ) thereof " under electrocaustică " from us ( 1953-1955 ) in two volumes, numerous monographs , studies and communications. Academy celebrated the anniversary of 70 years (1973 ) , acad.Remus Răduleţ reveals his " total dedication , passion and energy of craters in science."

Search and Research and Development never ends

Sincrely
OCWL
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: lancaIV on December 05, 2013, 05:18:33 AM
heat(= brownian motion above zero-degree Kelvin) pump
similar: www.papapump.com (http://www.papapump.com)   p.ump a.ctivated p.ressure a.mplifiers

Sincerely
OCWL
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: Johan_1955 on December 05, 2013, 05:33:33 AM
More energy and out is myth. It is real when it comes to the calculations for the transitions, but as everyone found out in history it can not be converted to mechanical energy, i.e. the cop 3x can not be translated as it only relates to phase change calculations. ,H vae seen this fail many times in practice.
Sorry for the bad news, its just the way it is
Mark

Hi Mark,

---------------------

Combustion engine: for example 10 Kw and as we know only 30-35% to mechanical.

But he is producing almost a 30Kw of Heat, over cooling and Exhaust, use it.

Regards, Johan
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: profitis on December 05, 2013, 07:44:42 PM
aha @markdansie but mechanical conversions are horrid efficiencies.what if we found a way to directly convert to electric energy or direct to chemical energy at say,85% efficiency,the books balance may tilt in our favour.what if we integrated the whole heat pump energy cycle into a singular step to energy conversion,might make the balance tilt.
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: profitis on December 05, 2013, 07:50:27 PM
@ lanca you and me should try to figure a way to efficient oxygen gas related cold fusion and make a few more millions than rossi et al.imagine the advantages of oxygen/air powered cold fusion over hydrogen,and i,same as you, believe its very possible..
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: lancaIV on December 06, 2013, 04:07:21 PM
profitis:this is my flexible response
@ Peter(DasEnergy) you and me should try to figure a way to efficient oxygen(ammoniac/carbonoxid) gas related thermodynamic processes
(cold fusion=hydrogen related) and make a few more thousands/millions than Rossi et al.
Imagine the advantages of oxygen/air powered thermodynamic machines (cold fusion over hydrogen),and I,same as you, believe its very possible..

They searched for "Dealer profits are nearly (up to:HeatMax) 600% https://web.archive.org/web/20040727052034/http://www.irdusa.com/ (https://web.archive.org/web/20040727052034/http://www.irdusa.com/)
Inventor Dr. Robert Kane :
For example FishMax(R) - Electronic Fish Atractor
"The FishMax attracts salt and freshwater fish by sending out a special electricity frequency which is irresistible to fish....... ."
Splash- und ne Meerjungfrau war an der Schnur (betimmt  :P Sternkreiszeichen "FISCH")
mut nu`nur noch die Chips erangeln

Petri Heil :o
OCWL

p.s.: SonicMax uses a pulsed signal to emit,low frequency sonic waves through a single resonator......
The low-frequency vibration also creates a resonating boundary layer of water that surrounds ......

There are many people who writes so looooong about resonance during other do fishing and do time-parallel  de-son(h)ar/signing
harmonic resonance
Title: Re: The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)
Post by: PulseFuelNerd on December 26, 2013, 04:20:50 AM

Consider a mini split AC system modified to heat a 55 gallon drum of water and also to chill a second 55 gallon drum of water.

Think of this as a calorimeter test to determine (Joules heated + Joules chilled) / Joules of input energy.

Liquid exchange is many times more efficient than air exchange.

Wikipedia/SEER has a link to the highest liquid exchange AC available for purchase today. A 75 SEER is somewhere around 18.0 COP.

Is it reasonable to expect a 18/1 benchmark result from such a test?

EDIT: Would this be a (18+18)/1 benchmark result {ie 36 COP)?