Yes, it is. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 5:03 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> 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% >>> >> >> > >
