On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:45 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > On 18/10/2014 10:30 AM, John Berry wrote: > > Did you read/understand Paul's analysis? > > I didn't need to! Did you read/understand mine!? >
No, only the first line. Touche. Now I have I confess I do not know enough about the details, but isn't it reasonable to assume a certain degree of intense heat is required near the reaction and that this temperature is higher than the entire vessel can be allowed to operate at? Still I do agree to a degree and also even with conventional attempts of hot fusion, or Pharnsworth fusor types, can't if the energy is put in that ultimately becomes heat and the product of the nuclear reaction is heat, then wouldn't an underunity fusion reaction still really be over-unity if you desire heat and insulate the whole thing well? If no fusion occurred it should be a 100% efficient conversion to heat, so now with the energy of fusion, shouldn't it be overunity as a heater? Well obviously yes unless energy is vanishing. Another possibility worth noting is that if it isn't working as a form of fusion, then we don't know how it is working and there are various possibilities as to what might be critical, I suspect that the conduction of heat has an effect that in the right situation can lead to a useful effect on space (aether, vacuum) or matter, this would stop being a continuing effect (if useful) in an insulated vessel. And at any rate, such a device would need input energy initially anyway, and would have less straight-forward challenges in considering the degree of heat output in such a variable cooling system. And since the current device already handsomely proves overunity I am unsure if this would really be worth it. > > This is impractical and maybe impossible unless he can improve > efficiency. > > Carnot conversion just isn't great enough to turn the heat into usable > electricity. > > You don't need usable electricity to "make a self feeding Hot Cat and end > the controversy"! > > > On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:24 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I don't know why Rossi doesn't do this. I think he must hardly have any >> ingenuity - or the scientists/engineers that are in a position to advise >> him! (Or you could think of more insulting terms). >> >> To convert the output heat to electricity, and then convert it back to >> input heat would have to be the craziest approach imaginable to use! >> >> To feed the output heat back in as input heat all you need to do is >> insulate the device. What could be easier than that!? >> >> Then to stop it running away and melting down all you need to do is pump >> water or blow gas through it to cool it down in a controlled manner with a >> thermostatically controlled switch (which could even be a passive device >> like the old thermostats used in the cooling systems of auto-mobile >> engines). The cooling necessary to prevent melt-down represents your >> output energy. >> >> If you need some electrical "excitation" in addition to plain old >> resistive heating, then this would be a very small component and could >> easily be subtracted from the output energy to determine the energy >> balance. But the fact that the system "runs away" if it is allowed to get >> too hot - even after the "excitation" has been turned off - proves that >> this "excitation" is not really required. >> >> >> On 18/10/2014 7:32 AM, Paul Breed wrote: >> >>> Closing the loop with a hot side temperature of 1200C and a COP of 3, is >>> right on the very edge of possible... >>> >>> You need close to 50% of theoretical carnot efficiency... >>> >>> 100C cold 1200C hot gives carnot of 0.76 >>> >>> Best possible heat to mechanical work.. (3*.76) = 2.28 >>> Best possible Work to electricity 0.95 >>> >>> gives 2.116 so to break even close the loop and have ZERO excess >>> energy you would need to get to 46% of carnot >>> Commercial large scale power plants don't get to 46% of carnot.... >>> >>> Using something really simple like thermo electric (seebeck) generator >>> would require a COP of 20.2 to get to break even >>> assuming that electrical conversion efficency was 99% >>> >> >> > >
