Jones; You are right about the unit being in a lab, yet one must be careful as you say so you don't mix apples and oranges.
A number of off the street products do claim COP's greater than the LOX production example, although one does indeed need to look farther than just a statement of COP. For example the Jandy Model AE 2500 claims COP 5.4, while the Ice Breaker Model H100R is rated at 5.6 and its big brother at 6.1, or http://www.sortprice.com/search-CQ-Pool_and_Spa-Heat_Pump which all have claims of COP's that are higher. I do realize in the application being discussed that ( W/Qh = Qh-Qc/Qh ) would apply. -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 9:31 AM To: vortex Subject: [Vo]: Re: Loop closed? (was Re: High efficiency electrolysis) Michel Jullian wrote, > Sterling draws 1000W heat from hot reservoir (not necessarily water > BTW) and outputs 150W mechanical. Heat pump draws 150W*9=1350W from ambient air and outputs them to the > hot tank. Net power into the hot tank: 350W The figure of COP=9 may have occurred in print, or in a lab somewhere, and may be the ultimate goal to shoot at - but the people who do this for a living (use the Linde process to make LOX etc) ... like, well, Linde - they say that they can achieve a COP of about four in practice, but that is using a water heat sink (river) and that is a different kind of COP, from the "free energy" variety, in that the "sink" itself is not usable as heat. If you try to segment the stages for use in a heat engine (the most efficient Linde process uses six stages, I believe) then the COP goes down further below four. I think that a useful COP using the Linde for both heat and cool convesrion would be 2.5 and that is why I said earlier "if you can give me a Stirling with 40% Carnot efficiency using 100C water, then I can guarantee a self-runner." Of course this shifts the burden of proof for OU to the Stirling engine, because since the Carnot spread is only 100 degrees above ambient, the maximum possible efficiency is nowhere close to 40%. That is why I called it "magic," but in truth you will find people who think that the Stirling can exceed these limitations. I hope that they are correct, but the proof is lacking, so far. Jones
