The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)

[infringer]

Good info we all know that air can power and someone should look more into these claims...

It would be rather easy generate power with air I would assume...

Excess air interesting concept... if true.

[ATT]

.
I don't know if anybody's missing the boat here, but do you understand that when heat-pump COP is published it's just a comparison of the power required for the heat-pump to produce x-btu/h compared to what it would take a resistance heat-strip to produce x-btu/h?

Resistance heating produces 3.41 BTUH per watt (that's inordinately inefficient).

A 1500 watt bathroom heater produces 5,115 btu/h.

So a 3-ton (nominal 36000 btu) heat-pump would be the equivalent of about seven bathroom heaters, which would draw around 10.5KW for straight resistance heating.

With a COP of 5 (COP=Rated BTU/(Unit Watts x 3.41)), the heat-pump should operate around 2.1KW .

The key word here is 'should'. If you hang an Amprobe on it and check the draw, multiplying what you get by 230 will tell the real tale.

Heat-pumps only operate within a restricted ambient temperature range ( > approx 40F ), and continue to de-rate as the ambient temp drops. After that, they kick-in with 2nd-stage (resistance) heat-strips.

They also 'freeze-up' and have to defrost their outside coils from time to time. This is because they are simply a standard air-conditioner with the addition of a reversing-valve (and maybe a receiver and additional metering device), the 'outside' coil in the winter time is what you would consider the 'inside' coil in the summer (the evaporator coil, which is usually running at about 40 degrees cooler that the air flowing over it).

The above is true for air-over heat pumps, geo-source and water-source (which can be used to extract geo-heat) may not encounter the same ambient-temp restrictions, but their output is limited by the environment they operate in, all the same.

Personally, I heat with wood, but here's a comparison of resistance-heat, heat-pump and natural-gas that gives you an idea of cost-efficiency (2009 prices in California are approximate):

BTU/H: 36000

electric-resistance heat:..10.5KWh..@..$0.20/KWh   = $2.10/h
heat-pump:.....................2.1KWh..@..$0.20/KWh   = $0.42/h
nat-gas (36kbtuh bonnet):16 cu-ft..@..$0.02/cu-ft  = $0.32/h

As you can see, electrical-resistance heat is the most cost-inefficient of the bunch and it's actually cheaper to generate your BTUs with gas than with a heat pump, especially since the heat-pump will be in 'defrost' or operating in a de-rated condition a good portion of the time.

Now, if you had a way to produce around 100 PSI+ of air-pressure (with any decent CFM) for free, you could use a Hilsch-tube to both heat and cool your house with no moving parts...all it takes is air...

Tony
.

[mscoffman]

They also 'freeze-up' and have to defrost their outside coils from time to time. This is because they are simply a standard air-conditioner with the addition of a reversing-valve (and maybe a receiver and additional metering device), the 'outside' coil in the winter time is what you would consider the 'inside' coil in the summer (the evaporator coil, which is usually running at about 40 degrees cooler that the air flowing over it).

The above is true for air-over heat pumps, geo-source and water-source (which can be used to extract geo-heat) may not encounter the same ambient-temp restrictions, but their output is limited by the environment they operate in, all the same.

I think that "ground sourced loop" heat pump would be the only
one to consider over an outdoor free heat sink heat pump for
excess energy generation purposes. This would result in a
"seasonal energy averaging" method applicable to warmer
and moderate climates. One would be using the ground or a lake
or a parking lot as an opportunistic solar energy absorber and cold
sink. If an energy conversion heat pump were ever to operate in
resistive heating mode, then system design would not make sense.

Thank you Tony, It's good to see some real numbers, by the way.

:S:MarkSCoffman

[Nabo00o]

@Infringer
You should check out the links I posted, ESPECIALLY the one named Equalizer, as this explains the main reason to why we can create much more power only by equalizing two different pressures.
When a large tank with say 6 bars of pressure is filling up a small tank (to make the reduction of pressure in the big tank a minimal) the smaller tank will have a huge increase of temperature, as a matter of fact the increase will be so much the tank needs to be cooled if not risking to explode (because of excessive pressure!). But if allowed to cool and 'equalize' its temperature with the main tank and its surroundings again no increase of pressure will stay there. This is what's so interesting, using sharp gradients of time and power to increase the effect tremendously. The equalizer will in this case be a small tank or just simple pipe which is fitted with two one-way valves and receives an 'explosion' of air inside.

Again you should read that page, I found it incredibly interesting to read, it might just show one of the ways we can change our future into a green and clean world with infinite amounts of power.

[Nabo00o]

@Tony
Just some years ago I can remember reading a electrician/automatic popular science magazine.
Of the several things discussed there a Japanese heat pump caught my attention.
The scientists who had invented and tested it claimed a COP of 12 in regular conditions and could go far past that in ideal conditions.

One more VERY interesting thing about heat pumps is that they are only used to do one thing, either to cool or to heat something. However, if they are used at both at the same time (cooling one part of the Stirling engine while heating the other ) the COP can be doubled.

Now.... Just think about that kind of efficiency....
If a power plant was made, then we would absolutely have used 'optimal' conditions....

Naboo