Brushless generators can be designed to do >97% efficiency. Not a significant loss.
On 18 October 2014 17:17, John Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, but then you need to convert the physical energy into electrical > which will cause some extra loss. > > On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Robert Lynn < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> There are at least 5-10 different kinds of old and new stirling engines >> available with 30-40% efficiency using 7-800°C input temperatures. They >> range from 100W-30kW in capacity. So no problem doing a self-driven system >> with LENR COP of 3.2 >> Qenergy probably easiest to get a hold of (around 33%, using recently >> bankrupt Infinia's 3.5kW output design of which they built a fairly >> sizeable stirling solar dish field, so while not advertised they probably >> have 10's-100's of engines available now. >> Or could go for larger V4-90 of united sun systems (also about 32% >> efficient) at about 10-25kW output: >> http://www.unitedsunsystems.com/the-v4-90-stirling-engine/ >> They probably have several hundred motors sitting around from when they >> bought out bankrupted Stirling Energy Systems 2 years ago (they had a 75 >> dish field of stirling solar dishes in Maricopa AZ. >> Also Mahle Powertrain: >> >> http://www.mahle-powertrain.com/C1257126002DFC22/vwContentByUNID/D06710E71F58400DC1257A8B0038FDEA/$FILE/MAHLE%20Solar%20Stirling%20Engine%20Development%20(Abs).pdf >> 40.5% at 25kW >> >> On 18 October 2014 13:42, Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I wrote: >>> >>> In another sense, it would be no more overunity than a fission reactor, >>>> since the energy would be coming from the conversion of mass via nuclear >>>> reactions. >>>> >>> >>> The obvious objection to the above is that the release of energy always >>> involves a mass deficit. The idea was that cold fusion doesn't need to >>> involve a violation of CoE, and so a cold fusion device would not really be >>> an overunity device. >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> >> >
