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%
