I believe that the record shows that an ECAT went into thermal run away in the
earlier testing by the scientists. Is that not adequate to prove the point?
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: jwinter <jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Oct 17, 2014 10:45 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why doesn't Rossi makes a self feeding Hot Cat and ends the
controversy.
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!?
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, <jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au> 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%
