On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 3:25 AM, Peter Gluck <[email protected]> wrote:
> Atmospheric Vortex Engine creates tornadoes to generate electricity > http://www.gizmag.com/vortex-engine-tornadoes-electricity/25508/ > > Not to be classified as OT, Vortex was created illo tempora to > discuss CF-related subjects including the Griggs and the Potapov > machines. See also vortex tubes as kind of Maxwell machines, > real but of low efficiency. > *www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com*/?p=501&cpage=5 James *Bowery* <http://jimbowery.blogspot.com/> July 23rd, 2011 at 2:40 PM<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=501&cpage=5#comment-55946> I should clarify that when I say the *Atmospheric* Vortext *Engine* is “least capital intensive” I mean per installed power (ie: $/W). I’ll show the calculation for two cases where the exhaust temperature is a more conservative -30C and the capital cost is as currently estimated for the ambient heat case of $300/kW ( http://vortexengine.ca/PPP/AVEtec_Business_Case.pdf): 1) Ambient temperature of 20C Carnot efficiency: 17% = (293.15Kelvin-243.15Kelvin)/293.15Kelvin 2) E-Cat temperature of 300C Carnot efficiency: 57% = (573.15Kelvin-243.15Kelvin)/573.15Kelvin less than $100/kW = (17%/57%)*$300/kW That’s less than 10 cents an installed Watt capitalization. Nothing else comes close. James *Bowery* <http://jimbowery.blogspot.com/> July 23rd, 2011 at 1:01 PM<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=501&cpage=5#comment-55918> In areas with low peak annual winds, the least capital-intensive technology to turn E-Cat heat into baseload electricity is likely to be the * Atmospheric* *Vortex* *Engine* <http://vortexengine.ca/index.shtml>. With an exhaust temperature of nearly -60C, the Carnot efficiency can be very high with virtually no thermal pollution.
