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

[Tom Booth]

No false reasoning here. It is not possible to combine a heat engine and heat pump together and produce usable output work. If you think there is a way then you don't have any appreciation of either energy  conservation laws or thermodynamics.

I do think that there May Be a way. The way that Tesla described quite lucidly and convincingly IMO. But this is not the way most people would go about it. That is, using the heat pump to concentrate heat to run a heat engine. I think that that would indeed be futile.

With a vast reservoir of Ambient heat available the problem is not moving heat to where it can be used so much as getting rid of the over abundance of excess heat.

In other words if you first use the heat pump to throw off heat so as to create a "sink" then run your heat engine on ambient heat, and the heat engine is converting that heat as it comes in then the "sink" once established is maintained.

You say this can't work because it is impossible to run a heat engine without dumping heat into the sink. I disagree. It seems that it is possible to convert ambient heat into electricity on a nano-scale. I'm not so sure it is impossible on a macro scale. Keeping something cold doesn't require an input of energy, just some really good insulation to keep the heat OUT. If heat is absorbed and converted into electricity the end result is a drop in temperature - COLD.

Therefore your heat engine should be able to run continuously on ambient heat without dumping that heat into the insulated cold sink as the heat is being converted to electricity. Your heat pump would have very little if any work to do. It could be run intermittently if necessary as no insulation is perfect at keeping out heat and no heat engine is perfect at converting heat to electricity.

This is not a closed loop. It is an open system.

Heat In > > Electricity Out.

If its possible its possible, and apparently it is possible:

http://www.theimagingsource.biz/en/technology/ambientheatelectricity/

[PulseFuelNerd]

Is the scientific method absolute rubbish?

Average air conditioners are 3.5 COP, is this absolute rubbish?

Increasing exchanger size increases COP, is this absolute rubbish?

Liquid exchange increases COP, is this absolute rubbish?

Is seeking to document the maximum COP of the average air conditioner under average temperatures, because it does not exist in the public domain, unworthy of effort, R&D, budget and time?

Perhaps reading the ASHRAE handbook of fundamentals is a waste of time?

I understand that, as a standard,  the burden of proof is upon the one making a scientific claim. However, new information is not available at every corner store. There are no links to substantiate NEW information.

With 15 simple letters you throw some of my finest WORK into the ditch.

Gianna, do you consider yourself of open mind?

Assuming you have an air conditioner, With enough budget and time, I could come to your home and point to the thermal potentials. I can place an 'x' on the sub system device that creates the heat potential (compressor), I can place an 'x' on the length of copper pipe where it exists prior to reaching the coil (hot air exchanger). I can place an 'x' on the device that creates the cold potential (expansion valve), I can place a 'x' on the length of copper pipe where that potential exists prior to entering the coil (cold air exchanger).

I respect an individuals ability for opinion and the right to express it. How you go about doing that reflects upon you. Gianna, I am asking you to bring it up a notch.

@ All, I can point to the potentials!
For me there was no hand rail, no easy trail of breadcrumbs to follow. I have spent the hours of contemplation required to earn this knowledge.

Is this realization enough to cause one to pause and consider upon the nature, dynamics, and magnitude of either of these thermal spikes?

This realization is only the beginning, the first step, to a wealth of greater understanding. 

I was surprised to find that these temperatures are known, off hand,  by every a/c technician.  But this represents the average a/c system. My mind went towards the question - what is the maximum potential? This is unknown to the public domain - as far as my research has been able to uncover. (I'm not asking for theoretical maximum debate and endless and pointless discussion.) I am looking for, rubber hits the road, real world heat pump builds and testing at average realistic temperatures. Say between freezing and summer days.

I am looking for the COP of water emmersed exchangers and the DATA supporting such calorimeter tests. (when this hits 88 mph, you're going to see some serious...)

I am looking for people who want to consider upon applying these potentials to even a TEM unit at 10% return thermal efficiency. (let alone the higher returns from stirling engine technology or steam engine/turbine technologies)

[The understanding of a phase change symbiotic thermal system and it's maximum COP is staggering to comprehend and reflect upon. But, you are probably not ready for this, nor the discovery that i am sitting on.]

First, We need to entertain the basics and create the foundation upon which to build.

Will you reflect upon the nature of these thermal potentials?
Will you begin to explore the dynamics of creating even higher thermal potentials?

[Tom Booth]

It is simply not possible. Fact one.. not all the ambient heat can be converted to electricity.

That has been postulated in thermodynamics. The "second law of..." I believe. My observation of the actual operation of some Stirling Engines however, as posted in another thread (discounting heat loss due to friction and conduction which can be minimized if not eliminated altogether), indicates that ALL the heat used in expanding the gas in such an engine (Lamina Flow "free piston" Stirling running without a flywheel and generating electricity via a linear generator) IS CONVERTED. Otherwise it seems impossible to explain the return of the piston in the cylinder with no stored momentum from a flywheel to push it.

You offered that this is due to the "resonant effect", which you were apparently unable to explain or describe in any detail. Call it what you will, the fact is that the gas after delivering energy to the piston, is seen to cool and contract with the result that the piston returns all the way back to its starting point. This appears to take place without heat transfer. That is, adiabatically. (Too fast for the gas to exchange heat with its surroundings. )

Fact two. because of this some of the ambient heat will reach the cold sink and it will begin to heat up. Fact three. Eventually the cold sink will warm to ambient temperature and potential for energy generation will stop. To continue producing energy cold sink will need to be cooled again. Fact four. cooling the cold sink will take more energy than the amount of energy produced by the heat engine.

If nearly all, if not all the heat is converted to work, then I see no reason why this work, or some of it, cannot be used for the removal of whatever small amount of nuisance heat may in one way or another find its way into the sink.

Perhaps you can make this clear by further elaboration. Simply stating something to be a "Fact" does not make it so.

Fact five.. no net energy production is possible from such a setup.
Fact six ... Tesla was wrong.

Your statements of opinion do not constitute "Fact".

Suppose you have a Stirling Engine driving a heat pump.

There are two reservoirs, one hot and one cold by means of which the engine is operating.

In the heat of the day the engine drives the heat pump so as to deliver heat from ambient to the hot reservoir. At night when the ambient temperature drops, the heat pump is reversed so as to take heat out of the sink and deliver it to the cool night air.

[pix]

   People,
What is so unexpected about a heat pump?
It still amazes me why peple are astonished when they hear that  a heat pump gives for exmple  4kW of heat for 1 kW electricity used. Every refrigerator is doing the same.
People are using stuff every day without even thinking why and how it works.
Principle is well known and simple.
As ambient air that surrounds us has certain temperature ( thermal energy stored) if you have a working media that has lower evaporating temperature- it will absorb that energy during phase change from liquid to gas.So even if there is minus 5 deg.C outside, and freon has evaporating temperature , let's say minus 25 deg.C- there is a 20 deg.C temperature difference available for heat transfer.
Electrically driven cmpressor compresses this gas to the pressure ( and higher temperature) where gas goes back to liquid- giving off energy previously absorbed from ambient air.
So, there is no any energy "gain" or "free energy".There is simple "energy transfer" thanks to the low temperature boiling liquid.Overall efficiency is less than 100%.
Or simpler explanation : refrigerator or a heat pump works like that :  A LARGE VOLUME OF LOW GRADE HEAT ( let's say outside air of temperture minus 5 deg.C)  IS "COMPRESSED" TO  SMALLER VOLUME OF  HIGH GRADE HEAT ( let's say 60 deg.C) THAT IS USABLE. That is all.
Regards,
Pix

[BobSmall]

@pix

The reason a heat pump is worthy of discussion is because the conventional explanation of how
heat engines work and what is happening is WRONG. And the understanding of what's wrong with
the explanation is found in examining a heat pump (the opposite of a heat engine).

Examine a 4 stroke gas engine:

Intake - compression - power - exhaust

the basic physics explanation of why the temperature drops during the power stroke is that
"a portion of the heat is being converted into work".

If this were true, then, in a refrigeration cycle (the opposite of a heat engine), the temperature rise,
during compression, would be is due, solely, to 'work' being converted into heat. If that were the case,
the COP of a heat pump would be limited to 1. And it would be in-capable of creating 'cold'. And it
wouldn't be called a heat pump because it would just be a heater.

A heat pump is probably not a way to get an overunity, self running power source. It "is" the first
step in freeing yourself from the mental handcuffs which is stopping people for finding heat engine
solutions to this challenge.

The only thing "impossible" to do, is get a "gas state" heat engine to get higher than carnot cycle
efficiency. The carnot cycle simply charts the expected efficiency of a steam engine.

The key to an overunity heat engine is to design a "liquid state" cycle.


Conclusion:
Heat goes through a heat engine and performs work in the process. The heat is not consumed.
Evidence: study the operation of a heat pump.

Huh?
A 'Gas State' heat engine will always be under 100%

     vs

A 'Gas State' heat pump will always be over 100%

    They are the reverse of each other.


"Contrast" and the secret you can grasp after you accept the above:

You can not build a liquid state heat pump (liquid for entire cycle)
because a liquid is (for lack of a better phrase): "Not as thermally dynamic."

        "AND"

You CAN build a liquid state heat engine which is over 100%:
"BECAUSE" liquid is "Not as thermally dynamic"


By "not as thermally dynamic", I mean that:
Liquid expands as it's heated but does not cool or expand as pressure
is reduced.