When COP Really is Greater Than 1

This guest post was submitted by ECW reader Ancientukscientist

In our quest for “free energy” and “over-unity” machines, it’s easy to get confused – especially in a sea of obfuscation and deceitful stuff which fills the Internet.

So – I thought this little “reality reminder” might be useful for everyone…

Probably, most scientifically-based people are familiar with the “Heat Pump” – a wonderful and useful device which is the basis for most domestic refrigerators. Larger versions are used to heat/cool domestic homes.

The compressor heat pump really seems to provide “free energy” – depending on exactly how you prefer to look at it – and how precise and pedantic you tend to be….

Most compressor heat pumps – when being used correctly – tend to have a coefficient-of-performance (COP) of around 3.

Yep! Really is true! You actually do get 3 times the amount of heating / cooling power from the heat pump than the amount of power required to turn the pump compressor!

So – how does this REALLY happen?

No Laws of physics are violated in this process – let’s consider what really happens when not viewed through rose-coloured glasses…

A domestic fridge has a well insulated compartment containing a reasonable area of “radiator” inside it, usually the “radiator” tubes and fins are an integral part of the “freezer compartment”.

On the back of the fridge, there is a further radiator, much larger than the internal one.

These two radiators perform the transfer of unwanted heat from the inside of the fridge to the outside.

Heat is pumped from the inner radiator, thus making it very cold – and producing ice if required – and causing the interior temperature of the fridge to reduce.

The heat is pumped to the rear radiator – raising it’s temperature in the process to make it warm to the touch – thus it is able to dump the heat pumped from inside the fridge by warming your kitchen slightly!

The heat pump is doing exactly what the name says. It pumps heat from one place to some other – in this case from the cold radiator (inside) to the hot radiator (at the rear).

In the process, the 100 Watt motor manages to pump heat, at an approximately 300 watt rate, OUT of the fridge – and dump it to the rear radiator.

Because the machine is not perfect, it has losses – which explains why the rear radiator gets slightly hotter than calculations would predict – or – alternatively – the inner radiator does not get quite so cold as you would predict….

Yes – it’s true! The COP of a heat pump really does turn out to be around 3 in normal (well designed) operation – so 100 Watts of electricity can produce around 300 Watts of heating or cooling.

So far, nobody has stood up in a rage and shouted “over unity is NOT POSSIBLE!”

The Machine is, for sure, pumping at roughly three times the rate, more heat energy in or out of some apparatus than the power of the motor would suggest.

But – it’s just physics – there’s no free energy at work here! We are simply using a friendly and useful machine to pump heat from A to B.

To the average Joe who’s using the machine, it really does seem to perform the miracle for him – it gives a 300 Watt rate of what he needed – for only 100 Watts of electricity — magic!

Of course, if we look at absolutely everything involved – rather than just the electrical input, we find that all the figures on one side of the equation are an exact match for those on the other. However, let’s not lose sight of the fact that we are achieving something somewhat miraculous nevertheless.

Now let’s allow our minds to wander a little bit – and ponder whether it might be possible to use the same general idea to achieve the “impossible” – to have more electrical energy be output from a Machine than is put into it….

What I’m suggesting is that it really might be possible – providing we can think “sideways” enough to see how to achieve an “electron pump” rather than a “heat pump”.

We all take the refrigerator for granted – and many homes, in the USA in particular, use reversible heat pumps to provide domestic heating or cooling.

I didn’t go into a long explanation of exactly how a Heat Pump works – there are myriad explanations available elsewhere. It’s the general idea I’m trying to explain – that it really is possible to achieve what might seem, on the face of it, the impossible. Heat pumps do it every day!

Hopefully, someone will read this and it will trigger the chain-of-thought necessary to achieve what we all need – the wonderful shoe-box which will give 3 Kilowatts of electricity out for only 1 kilowatt in — and no laws of physics will be broken…

Ancientukscientist

  • Ophelia Rump

    What you are looking for is Maxwell’s daemon.

    The closest thing to Maxwell’s daemon is not the heat pump but the Vortex Tube which is used to separate heat from cold.

    • Charles

      Ophelia, I have a great tendency to put the genius of James Clerk Maxwell out there ahead of Newton and Einstein. Well maybe not ahead of Newton. Newton’s stuff is just so brilliantly simple and it really did rattle the world.

      • Ophelia Rump

        In the history of the world I think only an exceptionally few people ever achieved what I would call true intelligence. The rest of us are overrated. Yes Maxwell was among them.

        • Daniel Maris

          No one’s suggesting any fundamental laws of physics are violated in relation to LENR are they? LENR, if it works, works by harnessing the energy within the atom to do some of the work of releasing the energy to the macro world, would be my understanding,not unlike fission, in that sense, but obviously a less violent process.

          • georgehants

            Only the average scientists would not know that in the Quantum reality that is more fundamental than the classical, assumed by most of science to be all there is, the ancient holy laws of science fall apart as the speed of light is irrelevant, communication is instantaneous (O, but we dumb humans cannot communicate with it so it does not count ha.) in tunneling the energy necessary exceeds that available and yet still occurs.
            The classical approximations died many years ago but many still try to live in the 19th century without realizing we are now in the 21st.

          • I would say that 19th century is newtonian physics
            20th century is quantum
            21th is collective quantum

          • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

            The problem with LENR is that the it is still a miracle, there is no compelling theoretical evidence and people well versed in the theory tend also to be skeptic because they simply cannot fatom that you can brake the potential. I really understand their point. But the fact is that we cannot rule out that there is a set of rare conditions that trigger some nuclear effect like a very high electron screening or such. If we just could get a good reproducible experiment out in the wild.

          • Daniel Maris

            I am not a physicist but looking at this from outside it does seem to me that there are a huge number of variables (thousands? tens of thousands? millions?) between the nano world and the macro world – depending on the chemicals, the gas pressure and the EM enviroment (to name but three and there are probably more). I guess the claim of LENR is that at least ONE and probably more of those variables, or sets of variables (an added variable in itself) breaks down the Coulomb barrier as classically understood.

          • jousterusa

            What I’m curious about is whether the Blacklight CIHT cell and the E-Cat represent two different pathways to free energy, or whether they are variations on the same theme?

          • Ophelia Rump

            It would be facilitating the flow of a reserve of energy which is recognized by science to exist. No physicists will be harmed in it’s production. No rules, laws, conventions or physicists will be violated. A few egos would be bruised.

          • Ophelia Rump

            There is no free lunch in a geothermal heat pump system.
            The heat pump is not over unity. The pump is merely taking advantage of an existing differential in temperature, like the difference in elevation of water on a dam, or electrical flow having a voltage differential. the COP of the device is much less than one, but the energy differential of the system meaning ground and air temperature difference is significant. Saying the heatpump has COP of 5 is really poor wording, it is very misleading. Science abhors a COP above 1, unless you discuss the entire system, power source, device and power dumps.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          Actually, the COP of a heating system based on a heat pump
          is often 3 an can even reach 5. This thus explains why many parts of the country
          (with mild winters) thus use heat pumps for heating. And the new high energy efficient
          General Electric water heater has a heat pump mounted on top to capture that
          excess (hopefully) heat in your furnace room. They claim that you can drop your
          hot water heating bill by an astounding 62% based on this system.

          GeoSpring Hybrid Water Heater
          http://www.geappliances.com/heat-pump-hot-water-heater/

          So heat pumps are VERY cool. In good conditions for 1000
          watts of input power you spend, you can get 5000 watts of output heat!

          The COP found in heat pumps MOST certainly raises the possibility
          of a self looping device based on this excess heat energy. The excess heat
          could for example drive a sterling engine. However such setups need COP in
          excess of 10 or more since such heat conversion engines are not that efficient
          and little energy would be left over in such a looped system.

          In fact, if the COP of the E-CAT turns out to only be in
          the 3-5 range, then the device is in direct competition with such heat pump
          systems. So you could buy a home e-cat water heater , or the above GE one.
          Likely the only advantage of the ECAT would thus be in colder climates
          where heat pump COP’s drop dramatic. And this also explains why electricity
          generation via LENR is A LONG WAY off unless the COP values go up dramatic.

          One of the challenges in LENR is that at VERY low input
          values (milliwatts), then COP often exceeds 20, even 40. However at higher and useful
          watt outputs, the COP drops dramatic, down to that range of heat pumps.

          In fact this low COP issue much explains why commercialization
          of LENR is taking so VERY long. LENR works, but with too low of a COP for commercial
          use at this point in time.

          I dare say that the REAL future LENR hinges on producing higher
          COPs. If such higher COPs cannot be obtained, then LENR will remain a “curiosity”
          without much commercializing possibilities.

          • fact police

            The COP found in heat pumps MOST certainly raises the possibility of a self looping device based on this excess heat energy.

            No, that would violate the second law of thermodynamics.


            In fact, if the COP of the E-CAT turns out to only be in the 3-5 range, then the device is in direct competition with such heat pump systems.

            If it’s a thermal-to-thermal COP (unlike a heat pump, which is electrical (or mechanical)-to-thermal — and Rossi does seem to claim this — then anything more than 2 should be enough to make it self-sustain.

          • JJM

            Ooh police!!

            “Hopefully, someone will read this and it will trigger the chain-of-thought necessary to achieve what we all need – the wonderful shoe-box which will give 3 Kilowatts of electricity out for only 1 kilowatt in — and no laws of physics will be broken…”

            this statement is misleading the “average joe” – bad scientist

            “The coefficient of performance or COP (sometimes CP) of a heat pump is a ratio of heating or cooling provided to electrical energy consumed.[1][2] Higher COPs equate to lower operating costs. The COP may exceed 1, because it is a ratio of output:loss, unlike the thermal efficiency ratio of output:input energy. For complete systems, COP should include energy consumption of all auxiliaries. COP is highly dependent on operating conditions, especially absolute temperature and relative temperature between sink and system, and is often graphed or averaged against expected conditions.[3]” – WIKI

          • Albert D. Kallal

            What law is being broken here? The simple issue (fact) is
            that your output energy is MORE then input. This is achieved though moving heat from one place to another. The fact that you have excess energy via this
            process in NO WAY eliminates or negates the fact that you have useful excess
            energy. Excess useful energy = excess useful energy. End of story, end of
            logic. You have to brush up on your logical thinking here.

            You mean this video is not possible:
            Video of stealing engine running off the heat of your
            hand:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DBktwPf3rk

            This excess energy ONLY exists with a temperature differential
            but again this temperature differential (excess energy) thus can most certainly
            be used to drive a heat engine. In case you missed the point, heating your home
            with a heat pump is COMMON and also POSSIBLE and is WIDESPREAD. And not only is this process COMMON but has as noted COPs in the 3 range, and often higher.

            You cannot self loop the heat pump inside of your house, but
            in in common practice you are using the temperature differential between
            outside air temperature and that of your indoor temperature. I mean a steam
            engine don’t work with a temperature differential between inputs and outputs either!

            The only issue and question here is what kind of COP
            would be required to self loop a heat pump.

            And yes, if you can have the ECAT self sustain, then that is
            a VERY DIFFERENT issue since then you are NOT requiring input energy during that self sustain mode. That would thus be akin to burning a fuel. As such a COP is not relevant to the discussion since during such self sustain mode there is no input energy required to run the device and thus no COP would apply to such a discussion.

            We have ZERO idea if the commercial units will run in self sustain
            mode at this point in time.

          • Ophelia Rump

            If you have a micro grid consisting of 5 Hot-Cats each powered off the grid and supplying power to the grid, you need only have booted the first off of some other power supply and then switched it over to the grid later.
            There is no magic in this if you have a fuel source and generators.

            We are merely accustomed to considering the electrical input the power source. In this system the power source, the fuel, is the nickle powder not the electricity. Just like the electricity is not the power source in your car. Unless you have an electric car.

          • US_Citizen71

            “The COP found in heat pumps MOST certainly raises the possibility of a self looping device based on this excess heat energy.

            No, that would violate the second law of thermodynamics.”

            No you just a very warm source to pump the heat from. What he is describing would hold true for geothermal power generation.

          • Ophelia Rump

            It has been done and done again. I looked into the subject about ten years ago, and recall that there was a church with a groundloop under it’s parking lot, they generated all their heat, electric and enough surplus power to drive the meter backwards and make a profit selling surplus electricity back to the power company.

          • Omega Z

            The Second Law should prepare to step aside.
            Current Heat Pump technology has obtained a COP=8 in lab settings with an ultimate goal of COP=30. With high enough temps for a 25% conversion to electricity.
            It not a matter of possible but whether or not it’s economically viable.
            As to the 2nd Law, Those doing the research say it is merely misapplied to heat pump technology.

          • fact police

            No one has shown that either of those equations for COP of an ideal heat pump (Th/deltaT) or the efficiency of an ideal heat engine (deltaT/Th) can be exceeded, which means the product can’t exceed 1.

            For a 25% efficient heat engine, you need something like 400 K, with a temperature difference of 100 K. The maximum heat pump efficiency providing heat at 400K from an ambient source around 300K is 4. So, as always, it’s a wash for ideal devices, and a loss for real ones.

            COPs of 8 or even 30 are not the problem, but if someone’s got COP of 8 at 400K using a source anywhere close to 300K, I’d like to see the reference, because that’s gonna make headlines.

            My money’s on the 2nd law, and I’d be delighted to take bets at any odds, assuming the return is better than an indexed investment (i.e. 15:1 / (number of years) or lower).

      • jousterusa

        It’s nice to hear a good word fpr Maxwell, whose work is rejected by the quantum mechanics people but which, as Randall Mills points out in the recent interview with Sterling Allan (http://www.blacklightpower.com/rrn-interview/) can solve all the high-density problems that quantum mechanics cannot.

        • Ophelia Rump

          Basic electronics theory was converted from Maxwells equations written in quaternions and converted to vector mathematics where many of the subtler variables were condensed. Meaning that basic paths in mathematics and electronics were obscured at the outset.

      • Ophelia Rump

        They do not even teach the basic math he used for his equations to electronics engineering students. They use a watered down version. This is probably why Tesla was capable, he was old school, from before they walled off most of the variables which can be manipulated in basic electrical theory.

        Perhaps there is the occasional electronics engineer who goes back and looks.

        • Charles

          That’s me, Ophelia. An electronics engineer who remembers one of my college professors mentioning Maxwell and going on to mention Oliver Heaviside’s reinterpretation which he seemed to think botched it or at least wasn’t helpful. Unfortunately, I never took the course about his equations. I have spent a lot of time reading about Maxwell and his equations on the internet and I am really impressed by him.

          • Ophelia Rump

            Have you seen the difference in the possible variables, and do you see any significance to them influencing the predictable behaviors of electricity?

            Could there still be unexplored avenues in electronics because of their elimination?

          • Charles

            Maxwell had 20 equations all hard to solve with differential math. Heaviside reduced it to 4 solvable with easier math. Electromagnetics has its own behavior that is not altered by what puny humans do.

            Maxwell more or less defined the world of electromagnetism, a feat ranking up there with Newton defining physical actions.

  • Ophelia Rump

    What you are looking for is Maxwell’s daemon. The closest thing to Maxwell’s daemon is not the heat pump but the Vortex Tube which is also used to separate heat from cold.

    Both systems require compression and compression is hard work which produces heat as a waste product.

    Heat Pumps become over unity when there is already a 25 degree difference in temperature between the source and the dump. Your kitchen refrigerator is not over unity. A ground water to air heat pump can be over unity depending upon the season. They are far superior to solar panels and fairly expensive because an efficient loop would require two wells or an expensive underground radiator system of tubes.

    • Charles

      Ophelia, I have a great tendency to put the genius of James Clerk Maxwell out there ahead of Newton and Einstein. Well maybe not ahead of Newton. Newton’s stuff is just so brilliantly simple and it really did rattle the world.

      • Ophelia Rump

        In the history of the world I think only an exceptionally few people ever achieved what I would call true intelligence. The rest of us are overrated. Yes Maxwell was among them.

      • jousterusa

        It’s nice to hear a good word fpr Maxwell, whose work is rejected by the quantum mechanics people but which, as Randall Mills points out in the recent interview with Sterling Allan (http://www.blacklightpower.com/rrn-interview/) can solve all the high-density problems that quantum mechanics cannot.

        • Ophelia Rump

          Basic electronics theory was converted from Maxwells equations written in quaternions. It was simplified to vector mathematics where many of the subtler variables were condensed. Meaning that basic mathematical paths in electronics theory were obscured at the outset.
          As I recall there were far more variables lost than the number remaining in the vector mathematics. It does leave room to wonder what branches of electronics we may be unaware of. Do entire branches of technology lie buried in dark sites somewhere.?

      • Ophelia Rump

        They do not even teach the basic math he used for his equations to electronics engineering students. They use a watered down version. This is probably why Tesla was capable, he was old school, from before they walled off most of the variables which can be manipulated in basic electrical theory.

        Perhaps there is the occasional electronics engineer who goes back and looks.

        • Charles

          That’s me, Ophelia. An 85 year old electronics engineer who remembers one of my college professors back in the 1950’s mentioning Maxwell and going on to mention Oliver Heaviside’s reinterpretation which he seemed to think botched it or at least wasn’t helpful. Unfortunately, I never took the course about his equations. I have spent a lot of time reading about Maxwell and his equations on the internet and I am really impressed by him.

          • Ophelia Rump

            Have you seen the difference in the possible variables, and do you see any significance to them influencing the predictable behaviors of electricity?

            Could there still be unexplored avenues in electronics because of their elimination?

          • Charles

            Maxwell had 20 equations all hard to solve with differential math. Heaviside reduced it to 4 solvable with easier math. Electromagnetics has its own behavior that is not altered by what puny humans do.

            Maxwell more or less defined the world of electromagnetism, a feat ranking up there with Newton defining physical actions.

            I still rank it Newton 1, Maxwell 2, Einstein 3. I will concede that Einstein has led us into a deeper world of comprehension.

    • jousterusa

      That’s why the Merrick Vortex vaporizer can save you 50% on gas. It uses gasoline from a high pressure line and spins it in a tube, from an injector at one end to an injector at the other, turning it into vapor, which burns far more productively than liquid gasoline. For a diagram, see moregowithhho.com, and the section on the Merrick Vortex, or call Richard Keough at 941-243-4561. He’ll be happy to explain.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Yes, I can see how that would be the ultimate in vaporization, larger droplets would be spun out to the higher temperature wall and microparticles would be cooled into a dense vapor cloud in the center.

        The device he is selling is very clever using the wound tubing to create a vortex.

        I was thinking of making an HHO gas generator. I would like to take up glass flame working but the torch equipment costs too much. If I had HHO I could make an entire flame working torch system for about one hundred and fifty dollars. And not have to deal with large heavy tanks of oxygen and propane. The down side is of course blowing your self and your home to hell. I don’t think I would trust HHO indoors, but a glass studio needs to have large ventilation so maybe I could put the HHO generator in a cinderblock housing to send any blast upwards.

  • Gerard McEk

    A simple elecrtic euivalent exists: The Rumkorff, it works in a simple way: You melt or glue the two ends of a plastic foil strip together, so you have a foil ring. You let the ring run around two axes, one upper and one downer ax and drive the tape around the two axes with a small motor at one of the axes. Near the downer ax you have a clothe of whool sliding against the running tape and at the upper ax you have a metal strip also sliding against the tape. This metal strip is connected to a metal sieve-like hoot: the Korff (German). The electrons put on the PVC tape by the clothe are mechanically transported with the tape to the upper ax where the strip takes them away and puts them on the Korff, which gets an increasing static voltage against earth. I once made this of LEGO and it works! I do not think you can make this thing working in Overunity, though…. or maybe if you put it next to a Beta emitter and do not use the clothe.

  • Gerard McEk

    A simple elecrtic euivalent exists: The Rumkorff, it works in a simple way: You melt or glue the two ends of a plastic foil strip together, so you have a foil ring. You let the ring run around two axes, one upper and one downer ax and drive the tape around the two axes with a small motor at one of the axes. Near the downer ax you have a clothe of whool sliding against the running tape and at the upper ax you have a metal strip also sliding against the tape. This metal strip is connected to a metal sieve-like hoot: the Korff (German). The electrons put on the PVC tape by the clothe are mechanically transported with the tape to the upper ax where the strip takes them away and puts them on the Korff, which gets an increasing static voltage against earth. I once made this of LEGO and it works! I do not think you can make this thing working in Overunity, though…. or maybe if you put it next to a Beta emitter and do not use the clothe.

  • georgehants

    We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.

    Plato

  • georgehants

    We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.

    Plato

  • TPaign

    Sorry to be a wet blanket, but the example shown above is not “net” over-unity. If it truly were, then you would be able to cool your kitchen by leaving the refrigerator door open. Most people have a hard time understanding this point, as leaving the refrigerator and fridge doors open actually heats up the kitchen due to greater mechanical work being done and the subsequent friction & heat losses.
    Say you improve the scenario by moving the condenser coils for the refrigerator outside the house, thus dumping the heat outside? Then yes, you could cool your house with your refrigerator, however this is still not “net” over-unity. More energy is used to actually perform the work to compensate for friction and ambient heat losses.
    Using the heat pump example as an allegory to explain Rossi’s process is mixing apples and oranges, and does disservice to the cause.

    • builditnow

      Correct, Install a air-conditioner capable of heating into our kitchen (inside, not in the window), measure the heat added to the kitchen, measure the electricity used and you will find that the room is heated “exactly” by the amount of electricity used. A 1000Watt electrical input air conditioner will heat your kitchen by exactly the electricity used regardless of whether you have it in heating or cooling mode because the cool air from one side is equal to the hot air on the other, plus the heat from motors and pumps.

      However, put a cold fusion generator in the room and you will find that the heat added to the room is the electricity used multiplied by the COP. If you put 1000Watt into a cold fusion reactor with a COP of 10 you heat the room by 10,000watts (or 11,000 watts depending on if the COP includes the 1000 watts input power).

      See the difference, the air-conditioner added 1000 watts, the cold fusion reactor 10 times as much.

      The secret is that the heat pump converts high grade energy in the form of electricity (capable of producing extreme temperatures, reference welders and so on) into a low grade heat (or cooling) that is a relatively small temperature difference compared to what the high grade energy of electricity can produce.

      If you take 1000 watts of electricity, run it through a heat pump, heating up some water from say 60F to 120F, then convert the 120F water back to electricity, you be lucky to get much energy back at all if you can even figure out a device get any energy out of the difference between 60F and 120F. That’s because the heat contained in the 120F water is low grade and that is why Rossi’s hot cat is so important, because at 600C (1112F) this higher grade heat capable of using a steam turbine to produce electricity in the region of 30%. That is 30% of the heat watts come back as electrical watts, that’s about the efficiency of a coal fired power station, newer one’s being a bit more efficient.

      Ultimately there is no comparison between a heat pump and fusion, hot or cold.
      Fusion is very high grade energy, witness the sun’s temperature.
      Cold Fusion is getting at this high grade energy without vaporizing everything in the neighborhood, witness a H bomb which uses fusion as it’s main source of energy.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        >>A 1000Watt electrical input air conditioner will heat your kitchen by exactly the electricity used regardless of whether you have it in heating or cooling mode because the cool air from one side is equal to the hot air on the other, plus the heat from motors and pumps.

        No, you get MORE then 1000 watts of heat. Imagine if the room next door has TONS of excess heat. You use a heat pump to only MOVE the heat. You will get MUCH MORE then just 1000 watts of heat. You think the cost of running a water pump in a hot water heating system = same as heat moved??? We only MOVING heat that already exists – we are NOT creating heat.

        I mean gosh, why on earth do they claim that heating with
        heat pumps has a COP > 1 then? We are MOVING heat. WHEN the cost of MOVING heat is LESS cost then creating that heat is when a heat pump has a COP > 1.
        The heat pump is NOT creating heat, but only moving it from one place to another.

        If the place you are MOVING the heat from is LESS cost
        then the energy required to move that heat, then you get a COP > 1.

        Heat pumps common achieve this result. So YES YOU DO get
        MORE heat then the 1000 watts spent – as much as 5 times. As the outside temperature drops – say below 0C, then the COP starts to rapid fall. This explains why heat pumps are not used in cold climates since the heat pump has to work VERY hard to extract (move) that heat from outside. You can still effective heat with temperatures down to say -8C, but you COP becomes 0, and at that point you likely best use that electric to drive a heater (coil) directly.

        This does suggest that in colder climates, then a ecat
        would be better then a heat pump. And as noted all bets are off if the ecat
        runs in self sustain mode – there not a COP anymore when that occurs.

        • Ophelia Rump

          Because if you run a heat pump in a gradient you can tap the gradient like a dam and take power from it’s flow.

          The device is not over unity, the system it is tapping provides power.

        • builditnow

          In the example above, I’m talking about having the air conditioner in the kitchen with both the hot air and the cold air circulating in the kitchen. I’m not in the example above talking about pumping heat from outside or another hot room into or out of the kitchen.
          Otherwise I’m agreeing with most of what Albert D. Kallal says.

  • bachcole

    This could be useful some day for LENR+: http://www.sciencerecorder.com/news/boron-buckyball-discovered/

  • Curbina

    This is a good explanation for people that have never grasped the concept of COP>1. Of course no laws are violated, but we also have to remember that we don’t know everything we should, not yet and for a good while I’m afraid.

  • Curbina

    This is a good explanation for people that have never grasped the concept of COP>1. Of course no laws are violated, but we also have to remember that we don’t know everything we should, not yet and for a good while I’m afraid.

  • pelgrim108

    Connect 5 E-cats on one end of the heat pump and have the other end go to 1500 degrees celcius. Would that be possible?

    • US_Citizen71

      Possibly, if you can find a working fluid and heat pump that can handle the temperatures.

    • Ophelia Rump

      That is an exact description of a high horsepower Sterling engine used in waste heat recovery and solar power towers.

      • pelgrim108

        Maybe a sterling engine can be used to power the heat pump. You just have to add a cold source to get maximum temperature differences.

  • Observer

    We do not measure the efficiency of an automobile by the ratio of horse power out divided by the power used from the battery (ignoring the consumption of fuel). If we did, the internal combustion engine would seem to violate the laws of physics. Then why do we insist on ignoring the consumption of fuel in the e-cat?

    • jousterusa

      The same is true of some of the HHO ystems that use less than 1 amp from the battery but save 10-25% pn gasoline, while giving your engine leaner burning fuel and boosting power. I think a site called fuelmax.com illustrates that.

      • Ophelia Rump

        You are not claiming that HHO is free energy I know this. The hydrogen burning as hot as it does, combined with the oxygen just happens to make the gasoline burn more cleanly and efficiently. The efficiency of any electrolysis is well under unity or 1.

        For high temperature electrolysis: From Wikipedia

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_electrolysis

        “At 100°C, 350 megajoules of thermal energy are required (41% efficient). At 850°C, 225 megajoules are required (64% efficient).”

    • US_Citizen71

      Do we measure the efficiency of a fission plant by the fuel burned or by the electricity produced from the heat created? That would be a more similar system to the Ecat than an internal combustion engine.

  • Observer

    We do not measure the efficiency of an automobile by the ratio of horse power out divided by the power used from the battery (ignoring the consumption of fuel). If we did, the internal combustion engine would seem to violate the laws of physics. Then why do we insist on ignoring the consumption of fuel in the e-cat?

    • bachcole

      Because there is next to no consumption of fuel. The fuel consumption is trivial, and being trivial it is going to change the world.

      • Observer

        If the e-cat fuel consumption is trivial, then why do we have to replenish the fuel every 6 months? All things finite only differ in scale.

    • jousterusa

      The same is true of some of the HHO systems that use less than 1 amp from the battery but save 10-25% on gasoline, while giving your engine cleaner-burning fuel and boosting power. I think a site called fuelmax.com illustrates that. (Just checked, and the site does not give any details at all – sorry!!.)

      • Ophelia Rump

        You are not claiming that HHO is free energy. I know this. The hydrogen burning as hot as it does, combined with the oxygen just happens to make the gasoline burn more cleanly and efficiently. I do not know this from experience, but it sounds reasonable enough to me. The efficiency of any electrolysis is well under unity or 1.

        For high temperature electrolysis: From Wikipedia

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_electrolysis

        “At 100°C, 350 megajoules of thermal energy are required (41% efficient). At 850°C, 225 megajoules are required (64% efficient).”

    • US_Citizen71

      Do we measure the efficiency of a fission plant by the fuel burned or by the electricity produced from the heat created? That would be a more similar system to the Ecat than an internal combustion engine.

  • bachcole
  • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

    Translation: “You unruly and naive LENR kids, do not seek to push the rules beyond the Pillars of Hercules”…

    • georgehants

      Anything beyond a steam engine is science fiction to most of science.
      If not sanctioned by the holy priests then a scientist must deny and debunk and certainly not look at any Evidence.
      Cold Fusion, amongst many other subjects is a good example I think

      • Hector McNuget

        But! what if make the investigations and find evidence at best weak? Is ever ok to prove not working, or just must wait for better sciencetits to do job right? Hector not make belief in UFOs….you do?

        • Ophelia Rump

          How do you prove a negative?

          Logically, you could argue that the sun will never explode. It certainly has never exploded in my lifetime. Please prove that the sun will not explode.

        • georgehants

          Are you seriously trying to debunk the Evidence regarding UFO’s, I must assume you can only be a scientist.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Perhaps he could rephrase that wiki quote into something we mere mortals could understand.

      Is that a mash-up of a lot of little quotes, or one really questionable quote?

      • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

        Unquestionably, one questionable Dante quote – you are right. The rest is referred to the (geographical) boundaries allowed by God to human knowledge, which, at that time, would be defined by the western borders of the Mediterranean: the rocks of Gibraltar, i.e. the Pillars of Hercules. One should just ignore the ignorance.

  • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

    Translation: “You unruly and naive LENR kids, do not seek to push the rules beyond the Pillars of Hercules”…

    • georgehants

      Anything beyond a steam engine is science fiction to most of science.
      If not sanctioned by the holy priests then a scientist must deny and debunk and certainly not think or look at any Evidence.
      Cold Fusion, amongst many other subjects is a good example I think

      • Hector McNuget

        But! what if make the investigations and find evidence at best weak? Is ever ok to prove not working, or just must wait for better sciencetits to do job right? Hector not make belief in UFOs….you do?

        • Ophelia Rump

          How do you prove a negative?

          Logically, you could argue that the sun will never explode. It certainly has never exploded in my lifetime. Please prove that the sun will not explode.

        • georgehants

          Are you seriously trying to debunk the Evidence regarding UFO’s, I must assume you can only be a scientist.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Perhaps he could rephrase that wiki quote into something we mere mortals could understand.

      Is that a mash-up of a lot of little quotes, or one really questionable quote?

      • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

        Unquestionably, one questionable Dante quote – you are right. The rest is referred to the (geographical) boundaries allowed by God to human knowledge, which, at that time, would be defined by the western borders of the Mediterranean: the rocks of Gibraltar, i.e. the Pillars of Hercules. One should just ignore the ignorance.

    • Andy Kumar

      Kids need to be admonished once in a while. Couldn’t have said better.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Actually, the COP of a heating system based on a heat pump
    is often 3 an can even reach 5. This thus explains why many parts of the country
    (with mild winters) thus use heat pumps for heating. And the new high energy efficient
    General Electric water heater has a heat pump mounted on top to capture that
    excess (hopefully) heat in your furnace room. They claim that you can drop your
    hot water heating bill by an astounding 62% based on this system.

    GeoSpring Hybrid Water Heater
    http://www.geappliances.com/heat-pump-hot-water-heater/

    So heat pumps are VERY cool. In good conditions for 1000
    watts of input power you spend, you can get 5000 watts of output heat!

    The COP found in heat pumps MOST certainly raises the possibility
    of a self looping device based on this excess heat energy. The excess heat
    could for example drive a sterling engine. However such setups need COP in
    excess of 10 or more since such heat conversion engines are not that efficient
    and little energy would be left over in such a looped system.

    In fact, if the COP of the E-CAT turns out to only be in
    the 3-5 range, then the device is in direct competition with such heat pump
    systems. So you could buy a home e-cat water heater , or the above GE one.
    Likely the only advantage of the ECAT would thus be in colder climates
    where heat pump COP’s drop dramatic. And this also explains why electricity
    generation via LENR is A LONG WAY off unless the COP values go up dramatic.

    One of the challenges in LENR is that at VERY low input
    values (milliwatts), then COP often exceeds 20, even 40. However at higher and useful
    watt outputs, the COP drops dramatic, down to that range of heat pumps.

    In fact this low COP issue much explains why commercialization
    of LENR is taking so VERY long. LENR works, but with too low of a COP for commercial
    use at this point in time.

    I dare say that the REAL future LENR hinges on producing higher
    COPs. If such higher COPs cannot be obtained, then LENR will remain a “curiosity”
    without much commercializing possibilities.

    • fact police

      The COP found in heat pumps MOST certainly raises the possibility of a self looping device based on this excess heat energy.

      No, that would violate the second law of thermodynamics.


      In fact, if the COP of the E-CAT turns out to only be in the 3-5 range, then the device is in direct competition with such heat pump systems.

      If it’s a thermal-to-thermal COP (unlike a heat pump, which is electrical (or mechanical)-to-thermal — and Rossi does seem to claim this — then anything more than 2 should be enough to make it self-sustain.

      • JJM

        Ooh police!!

        “Hopefully, someone will read this and it will trigger the chain-of-thought necessary to achieve what we all need – the wonderful shoe-box which will give 3 Kilowatts of electricity out for only 1 kilowatt in — and no laws of physics will be broken…”

        this statement is misleading the “average joe” – bad scientist

        “The coefficient of performance or COP (sometimes CP) of a heat pump is a ratio of heating or cooling provided to electrical energy consumed.[1][2] Higher COPs equate to lower operating costs. The COP may exceed 1, because it is a ratio of output:loss, unlike the thermal efficiency ratio of output:input energy. For complete systems, COP should include energy consumption of all auxiliaries. COP is highly dependent on operating conditions, especially absolute temperature and relative temperature between sink and system, and is often graphed or averaged against expected conditions.[3]” – WIKI

      • Albert D. Kallal

        What law is being broken here? The simple issue (fact) is
        that your output energy is MORE then input. This is achieved though moving heat from one place to another. The fact that you have excess energy via this
        process in NO WAY eliminates or negates the fact that you have useful excess
        energy. Excess useful energy = excess useful energy. End of story, end of
        logic. You have to brush up on your logical thinking here.

        You mean this video is not possible:
        Video of stealing engine running off the heat of your
        hand:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DBktwPf3rk

        This excess energy ONLY exists with a temperature differential
        but again this temperature differential (excess energy) thus can most certainly
        be used to drive a heat engine. In case you missed the point, heating your home
        with a heat pump is COMMON and also POSSIBLE and is WIDESPREAD. And not only is this process COMMON but has as noted COPs in the 3 range, and often higher.

        You cannot self loop the heat pump inside of your house, but
        in in common practice you are using the temperature differential between
        outside air temperature and that of your indoor temperature. I mean a steam
        engine don’t work with a temperature differential between inputs and outputs either!

        The only issue and question here is what kind of COP
        would be required to self loop a heat pump.

        And yes, if you can have the ECAT self sustain, then that is
        a VERY DIFFERENT issue since then you are NOT requiring input energy during that self sustain mode. That would thus be akin to burning a fuel. As such a COP is not relevant to the discussion since during such self sustain mode there is no input energy required to run the device and thus no COP would apply to such a discussion.

        We have ZERO idea if the commercial units will run in self sustain
        mode at this point in time.

        • Ophelia Rump

          If you have a micro grid consisting of 5 Hot-Cats each powered off the grid and supplying power to the grid, you need only have booted the first off of some other power supply and then switched it over to the grid later.
          There is no magic in this if you have a fuel source and generators.

          We are merely accustomed to considering the electrical input the power source. In this system the power source, the fuel, is the nickle powder not the electricity. Just like the electricity is not the power source in your car. Unless you have an electric car.

          Many people here seem to be arguing that hydro electric dams could not possibly work, they just do not know it.

        • fact police

          Kallal asked:
          What law is being broken here?

          The 2nd law of thermodynamics.

          But maybe I misunderstood what you meant when you said “The COP found in heat pumps MOST certainly raises the possibility of a self looping device based on this excess heat energy.”

          I thought you meant that you could use the heat delivered by a heat pump to run an engine to generate electricity to power the heat pump, in a closed system, so the net result would be the transfer of heat from a colder body to a hotter body, without any other changes to the system. This violates the second law, which in the Clausius statement says “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”

          The COP of an ideal heat pump is Th/deltaT, where Th is the temperature of the hot reservoir (to which heat is delivered), and deltaT is the temperature difference between the hot and cold reservoirs. The COP of an ideal heat pump is therefore necessarily larger than unity, because Th must be larger than the temperature difference, since the cold reservoir is above absolute zero.

          The efficiency of an ideal heat engine is deltaT/Th, the reciprocal of the COP of an ideal heat pump operating between the same reservoirs.

          So if you use the heat from an ideal heat pump to operate an ideal heat engine to turn an ideal generator, the net efficiency is the product, which is identically 1, and so the output electricity is the same as the input electricity. If you could do this, and used the output to power the input, the heat pump, engine, and generator would continue to turn, but you could not extract any power from it, and since the heat engine moves heat in the opposite direction from the heat pump, there would be no net heat transfer. It’s like a wheel spinning on frictionless bearings indefinitely. But of course, just as there are no frictionless bearings, there are no ideal heat pumps or ideal heat engines, and so the output electricity from such a chain will always be less than than the input electricity, meaning if you looped it, it would spin to a stop in a very short time.


          The simple issue (fact) is that your output energy is MORE then input. This is achieved though moving heat from one place to another. The fact that you have excess energy via this process in NO WAY eliminates or negates the fact that you have useful excess energy. Excess useful energy = excess useful energy.

          This is exactly right. I did not disagree with this point.

          End of story, end of logic.

          It does not represent a self-looping device though, so it’s not the end of the story. You still need an engine and a generator.

          This excess energy ONLY exists with a temperature differential but again this temperature differential (excess energy) thus can most certainly be used to drive a heat engine.

          Again, I have no disagreement with this. Nor does Claudius.

          The only issue and question here is what kind of COP would be required to self loop a heat pump.

          Here is the disagreement. According to the second law, it can’t.


          And yes, if you can have the ECAT self sustain, then that is a VERY DIFFERENT issue since then you are NOT requiring input energy during that self sustain mode.

          But I though that a self-looped heat pump would not require input either. If it does, what do you mean by a self-looped heat pump?

          The ecat would not violate the second law because it (allegedly) generates its own energy. A heat pump does not.


          That would thus be akin to burning a fuel.

          Yes, exactly.

          As such a COP is not relevant to the discussion since during such self sustain mode there is no input energy required to run the device and thus no COP would apply to such a discussion.

          Right. But depending on the system, a minimum COP is necessary before it can go into self-sustain mode, but I agree, once that point is reached, COP is infinite, and no longer represents a figure of merit. This minimum COP depends on the amount of energy produced that can be used to sustain the reaction, and the form of the input energy necessary to initiate it in the first place. For example, if the reaction is only triggered by electricity, then the COP has to be larger than the reciprocal of the efficiency of the heat engine to reach self-sustained mode. But if the input is thermal, and the heat generated is captured and can initiate further reactions, then a COP of 2 is enough to reach ignition and self-sustained mode.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            > But I though that a self-looped heat pump would not require input
            either. If it does, what do you mean by a self-looped heat pump?

            The logic and thinking here is quite much in the context of this discussion. You have a running heat pump machine that yields more energy then the input energy. (the semantics of the fact that we are moving heat is much moot).
            All that maters here is we get in our hands MORE energy out then
            our input cost. So when I say self loop, by logic and reason I am simply stating we take the energy heat output and run some type of generator. The electric output of the generator is thus used to drive the heat pump and ALSO give us additional energy to run appliances etc.

            As noted, such a “box” is entirety possible. The only
            remaining issues are how much of a heat difference and COP do we need to build such a box.

            Likely its not practical that such a magic box yields enough
            excess energy in a typical heat pump system and typical climate, but certainly with high enough heat differentials, such a system becomes rather feasible and possible.

            So the “self loop” is not the heat cycle, but taking the
            excess heat and running a generator. The output of the generator is thus looped back to the heat pump. Such a system is most certainly able to not only produce enough energy to run the heat pump, but also produce excess energy for your enjoyment and use.

          • fact police

            Kallal said:

            So when I say self loop, by logic and reason I am simply stating we take the energy heat output and run some type of generator. The electric output of the generator is thus used to drive the heat pump and ALSO give us additional energy to run appliances etc.

            OK, that’s what I thought you meant. So then you no longer need input, and yet you said not needing input differentiates the self-sustained ecat from the self-looped heat pump.

            As noted, such a “box” is entirety possible. The only remaining issues are how much of a heat difference and COP do we need to build such a box.

            Sucha a box has never been demonstrated, and would violate the second law, as explained in detail. The heat difference determines *both* the maximum COP of the heat pump and the maximum efficiency of the heat engine, and since they are the reciprocal of one another, the product, representing the maximum net electric-to-electric efficiency is unity.


            Likely its not practical that such a magic box yields enough excess energy in a typical heat pump system and typical climate, but certainly with high enough heat differentials, such a system becomes rather feasible and possible.

            It’s neither feasible nor possible without violating the 2nd law.

            Such a system is most certainly able to not only produce enough energy to run the heat pump, but also produce excess energy for your enjoyment and use.

            Transferring heat from a cold source to a warm represents a decrease in entropy (increasing order), which doesn’t happen spontaneously in nature, and so requires the input of work, namely the consumption of electricity, which represents an equal or greater increase in entropy (even if it represents a smaller amount of *energy*).

            Running a heat engine to produce mechanical work (or electricity) causes a decrease in entropy (increasing order), which doesn’t happen spontaneously in nature and so requires an equal or greater increase in entropy resulting from the transfer of heat from a hot source to a cold.

            The second law says the entropy of a system always increases, so that means you can’t transfer heat from cold source to hot *and* produce net electricity, because both of those processes *decrease* entropy. You need some process that at least balances that with an increase in entropy, and there is none.

            So, it’s not gonna happen.

            Entropy is a subtle concept, and you may prefer just applying the formulas for ideal heat pumps and engines, but either way, what you’re describing is a clear violation of the 2nd law, and it’s not called a law for nothing.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            >and would violate the second law, as explained in
            detail. The heat difference determines *both* the maximum COP of the heat pump and the maximum efficiency of the heat engine, and since they are the reciprocal of one another, the product, representing the maximum net electric-to-electric efficiency is unity.

            Pure rubbish. If we are in Hawaii and outside is a pool
            of molten lava that bubbles up then A SIMPLE water pump would pump the water into the molten lava pool and the resulting heat output pulled into your house would be VASTLY more then the cost of the electricity to run the water pump (or another working fluid). The water could be under pressure (closed) and then a heat exchanger inside your house would be used to boil a fluid that drives a turbine.

            Oh wait!!! In place of the water pump, we use a heat pump
            and again pump that fluid into the molten lava pool. In case you missed this, the heat pump is simply a heat exchanger system in which a working fluid transfers heat from ONE LOCATION to another.

            So we are simply using a heat pump to transfer the energy
            from that molten pool of lava to inside your house. The process here is no different if we use water or the heat pump with a working fluid.

            There is no law of entropy here that relates the transfer
            of heat to the ENERGY COST of transferring that heat. For what possible brain dead reason would not such a system work and for what possible reason would not such a system generate MUCH excess energy then just the energy required to MOVE the heat?

            This process is actually no different then you going out side and placing molten rocks from the lava pool and bringing them into your
            house and tossing them in a pot to boil the water. The amount of energy you get (say rocks are hotter one day) does NOT change the COST of transferring that heat. In the case of a heat pump, the cost to move heat can go up as there is less heat energy to grab at, but at the end of the day this is a conveyer belt of a fluid to MOVE heat.

            You are attempting to tell me that the cost of “moving”
            that energy trapped in some rocks (or fluid) = entropy cost of moving that
            heat. This simply not the case at all.

            The simple fact is RIGHT NOW for 1000 watts of energy you
            can produce (move) 5000 watts of heat in a typical heat pump. If the cost of heat transfer (entropy) applied here then how on earth could a typical heat pump NOW IN OPERATION product MUCH more heat then the heat energy (watts) spent to produce that heat?

            This happens all the time now. Why would taking molten
            rocks from outside and placing them on a conveyer belt have anything to do with the energy cost of running the conveyer belt? We moving heat, not creating it.

            Your applying of laws of entropy here is absolute silly.
            You telling me that if I pump water into a molten pool of lava outside and take the returned heat, that such a transfer of heat is not going to be MANY TIMES greater then the cost of moving such heat? (give you head a shake here). So the cost of moving the heat = entropy here? How silly! This it not at all how this process works. In fact as the heat differential goes up, the cost of moving the heat remains the same. You toss those rocks in your wheelbarrow to bring inside, if they are very hot, or just lukewarm, the cost of you pushing the wheelbarrow into your house remains the same.

            It is without question that such a system can produce far
            more energy then the cost of moving such heat. As I stated, the issue then becomes what kind of heat differential does one need for such a setup to be useful.

          • fact police

            > Pure rubbish. If we are in Hawaii and outside is a pool of molten lava that bubbles up then A SIMPLE water pump would pump the water into the molten lava pool and the resulting heat output pulled into your house would be VASTLY more then the cost of the electricity to run the water pump (or another working fluid).

            Yes, of course, but in this case you are transferring heat from a hotter to a colder object, and that happens spontaneously in nature, and represents an increase in entropy. You wouldn’t even need a pump. Just suitably arranged conduits could heat your house with zero input energy.

            In any case, I never disagreed with the idea that moving heat can be done with a COP larger than 1. In an ideal case, it is necessarily more than 1.

            > The water could be under pressure (closed) and then a heat exchanger inside your house would be used to boil a fluid that drives a turbine.

            I agree. This does not violate the 2nd law, because the lava is *warmer* than the house.

            > Oh wait!!! In place of the water pump, we use a heat pump and again pump that fluid into the molten lava pool. In case you missed this, the heat pump is simply a heat exchanger system in which a working fluid transfers heat from ONE LOCATION to another.

            I know what a heat pump is. It transfers heat from a colder to a warmer body. Since that does not happen spontaneously in nature, it requires input energy, usually in the form of mechanical work to run a compressor.

            What you’re talking about is transferring heat from a hotter to a colder body, which *does* happen spontaneously in nature, and therefore does not require input work.

            > So we are simply using a heat pump to transfer the energy from that molten pool of lava to inside your house.

            You don’t need a heat pump for that. You just need a pump.

            > The process here is no different if we use water or the heat pump with a working fluid.

            Heat pumps are not used to transfer heat from hot bodies to cold bodies.

            > There is no law of entropy here that relates the transfer of heat to the ENERGY COST of transferring that heat.

            Right, because the lava is hotter than the house.

            > For what possible brain dead reason would not such a system work and for what possible reason would not such a system generate MUCH excess energy then just the energy required to MOVE the heat?

            There is no reason in this case, because the lava is hotter than the house, so the 2nd law has no problem with this.

            > This process is actually no different then you going out side and placing molten rocks from the lava pool and bringing them into your house and tossing them in a pot to boil the water.

            Getting heat from lava is the same, yes. But it is different from the way a heat pump works. You can’t just take rocks from the ground at 5 C and take them into your house to boil water. If you want to extract heat from a colder object, and move it to a hotter object, you have to do some work for it.

            > The amount of energy you get (say rocks are hotter one day) does NOT change the COST of transferring that heat.

            If the rocks are colder than the house, then the cost does depend on the amount of energy you get. There’s a formula for it. The maximum COP for a heat pump is Th/deltaT. Look up heat pump in wikipedia for the derivation of that formula.

            > In the case of a heat pump, the cost to move heat can go up as there is less heat energy to grab at, but at the end of the day this is a conveyer belt of a fluid to MOVE heat.

            To use that analogy, then you should consider getting heat from a lower temperature like transferring rocks from a lower elevation. There is no energy cost to getting rocks from a hill. But to bring them up from a valley requires energy, and the deeper they are (colder) the more energy you need.

            > You are attempting to tell me that the cost of “moving” that energy trapped in some rocks (or fluid) = entropy cost of moving that heat. This simply not the case at all.

            Well, you can’t equate energy to entropy like that, but yes moving energy from a colder to a hotter body decreases entropy, and so there is a cost involved. And the bigger the temperature difference, the bigger the cost.

            > The simple fact is RIGHT NOW for 1000 watts of energy you can produce (move) 5000 watts of heat in a typical heat pump.

            Right. I already agreed with this.

            > If the cost of heat transfer (entropy) applied here then how on earth could a typical heat pump NOW IN OPERATION product MUCH more heat then the heat energy (watts) spent to produce that heat?

            Transferring the heat from a colder body to a hotter body reduces entropy. Since the 2nd law says entropy of a system always increases or stays the same, another process has to happen to offset the decrease in entropy. But that other process does not have to involve the same amount of energy. The amount of energy involved in entropy change depends on temperature (dS = dQ/T). So if you cause the increase in entropy at a lower temperature, you need less heat. That’s why the COP of a heat pump is greater than 1. But it’s not unlimited.

            > This happens all the time now. Why would taking molten rocks from outside and placing them on a conveyer belt have anything to do with the energy cost of running the conveyer belt?

            It doesn’t, and as long as you’re transferring heat from a hotter molten rocks to a colder house, you can have infinite COP. But using that conveyor belt to move cold rocks into your house will not heat the house.

            > We moving heat, not creating it.

            I’m familiar with the principle of heat pumps.

            > Your applying of laws of entropy here is absolute silly.

            Well, you should take that up with Carnot and Clausius and the other fathers of thermodynamics. Carnot used the principle of a reversible heat engine / heat pump and the 2nd law to derive the maximum COP of a heat pump, and the maximum efficiency of heat engines in his famous Carnot cycle. No one has ever exceeded either, and that means your heat pump/generator scenario won’t work.

            But when you consider analogies, keep in mind that a heat pump moves heat from a cold object to a hot object. All your lava stories are therefore irrelevant.

            Wikipedia has many good articles on the subject. I suggest you read them.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            > I know what a heat pump is. It transfers heat from a
            colder to a warmer body.

            Says who? Where did you read the above?

            From what planet of stupid logic has ANYONE here cooked up
            such a stupid deflection on your part as to restrict this debate to moving heat from a colder medium to a warmer one? I have MULTIPLE times mentioned the issue becomes how much of a heat differential we have to work with. Only a drunken rodeo clown would assume that means we moving heat from a colder medium to a warmer one. Why such a galactic silly pretext on your part, when NO ONE ELSE is making
            or claiming such a silly restriction for this debate?

            No one with a coherent and thinking mind would EVER restrict
            this debate to ONLY moving heat from colder mediums. This is ESPECIALLY so when I HAVE MULTIPLE TIMES stated the issue becomes what kind of heat differential we have to work with. And your response is that such claims are restricted to moving heat from a colder medium? Let’s not get beyond silly here! So we talking about using heat differentials to drive some kind of generator and you
            assume this means moving heat from a colder medium? Gee, you must have forgot the memo about how near every generation system on the planet works!

            So I cannot put a few panels on the roof to heat a working fluid
            and then use a heat pump to move that heat to run a generator? Why is this impossible as you claim?

            When I spoke of a greater heat differential you thus make the
            insane assumption we are talking about moving heat from a colder location? Give your head shake here. No one would make nor attempt to restrict this discussion to that case.

            I shall repeat for the zillion time:

            I stated the issue becomes what kind of heat differential
            is required to make such a system work. And just to make you happy, that heat differential I spoke of MULTIPLE TIMES in no way of semantics, by omission, by hinting, or by any kind of reasoned logic EVER in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER suggested that we talking
            about using a heat pump to grab heat from a colder medium and moving it to a warmer one. It just turns out using the latent heat (phase change) of a fluid is a great way to move heat – that what a heat pump does, and any talk of restricting this debate to ALWAYS moving heat from colder mediums to warmer ones is as noted a silly and arbitrary restriction on your part. (and the stress the “your part” here).

            The only people making such silly assumptions here are those who wish to engage in a big bout of deflection to cover their silly assuming
            while attempting to look intelligent and telling others here they need to brush up on basic science. It called arrogance, and you would do well to just admit you made a whopper of a brain dead assuming here as that what intelligent and reasonable people do.

          • fact police

            Look, I don’t care what you think a heat pump is, but the discussion is pointless if you’re talking about moving heat from a hotter to a colder body. That happens spontaneously, requiring no input work at all, and therefore the COP can be infinite. All you need for that (as you said) is a fluid to provide heat exchange, and obviously you can run an engine on that heat, and use it move the fluid. That’s trivially obvious, but a heat exchanger is not a heat pump.

            The discussion was about finite COPs, and that only makes sense if you’re moving heat from a colder to a hotter body. And you can’t move heat from a colder to a hotter body, *and* get net electricity out. That violates the second law.

            For your own edification, a heat pump *is* defined as a device that moves heat from a colder to a hotter object. That’s the idea of a *pump*. Heat flows naturally to colder temperatures, but to move it the other way, requires work.

            When a device designed as a heat pump moves heat from higher to lower temperatures, then you get work *out* — doesn’t sound like a “pump” — and the COP is negative.

            Here’s the definition of heat pump given at physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/06/heat-pumps-work-miracles/#sthash.KYxhADsD.dpuf (emphasis, mine)

            “A heat pump, rather than creating heat, simply moves heat. It may move thermal energy from cooler outdoor air into the warmer inside, or from the cooler refrigerator interior into the ambient air. It pushes heat in a direction counter to its normal flow (cold to hot, rather then hot to cold). Thus the word pump.

            Or read the wikipedia article on “Heat pump and refrigeration cycle” where it cites

            “The Systems and Equipment volume of the ASHRAE Handbook, ASHRAE, Inc., Atlanta, GA, 2004” thusly (emphasis mine):

            “A heat pump is a machine or device that moves heat from one location (the ‘source’) at a lower temperature to another location (the ‘sink’ or ‘heat sink’) at a higher temperature using mechanical work or a high-temperature heat source.”

            Go to the library, and check any book on thermodynamics, and you’ll get the same definition.

            Here’s the definition from the American Heritage Dictionary:

            “A device that warms or cools a building by transferring heat from a relatively low temperature to one at a higher temperature.”

            And here’s the Merriam Webster concise encyclopedia”

            “Device for transferring heat from a substance or space at one temperature to another at a higher temperature.”

            (Some dictionaries do get it wrong, but the technical authorities are consistent. Unfortunately, the wikipedia article on heat pumps makes an error (without citation) when it adds “vice versa”. The entire article describes a device that moves heat to hotter temperatures. The vice versa probably refers to the fact that you can use a heat pump for cooling by running it backwards, but even then, heat is transferred from cooler to hotter.)

            But, regardless of semantics, these are the facts:

            1) a relatively hotter reservoir can be used to heat your home and make electricity, both at the same time. Is anyone surprised by this?

            2) a relatively colder reservoir can be used to heat your home if work is supplied (to run a compressor), even though the amount work is less than the amount of heat transferred. But the heat cannot be used to run an engine to operate the compressor to provide heat for your home and some extra electricity. That would violate the 2nd law.

      • US_Citizen71

        “The COP found in heat pumps MOST certainly raises the possibility of a self looping device based on this excess heat energy.

        No, that would violate the second law of thermodynamics.”

        No you just a very warm source to pump the heat from. What he is describing would hold true for geothermal power generation.

      • Ophelia Rump

        It has been done and done again. I looked into the subject about ten years ago, and recall that there was a church with a groundloop under it’s parking lot, they generated all their heat, electric and enough surplus power to drive the meter backwards and make a profit selling surplus electricity back to the power company.

        • Andy Kumar

          The church probably was granted divine exemption from the “laws” of physics.

          • Ophelia Rump

            There is no free lunch in a geothermal heat pump system.
            The heat pump is not over unity. The pump is merely taking advantage of an existing differential in temperature, like the difference in elevation of water on a dam, or electrical flow having a voltage differential. the COP of the device is much less than one, but the energy differential of the system meaning ground and air temperature difference is significant. Saying the heatpump has COP of 5 is really poor wording, it is very misleading. Science abhors a COP above 1, unless you discuss the entire system, power source, device and power dumps.

          • fact police

            A ground source heat pump (often called geothermal heat pump, though it does not really use what is usually considered geothermal energy, since the heat stored in the earth at 10 to 15 feet comes largely from the sun) is not over unity in the sense that it produces energy from nothing. However, it most certainly has a COP larger than 1, meaning it delivers more energy in the form of heat to a destination than it consumes usually in the form of electricity. This, however, does not enable it to produce electricity and sell it back to the grid.

          • Ophelia Rump

            You compound your ignorance like interest and think you are rich.

            Sucking the cold from a well is not what anyone in their right mind would call solar power.

          • Andy Kumar

            Ophelia,
            fact police knows his facts. Sometimes rhetoric gets in the way of clear understanding. Reality can be counter intuitive.

            http://www.igshpa.okstate.edu/geothermal/

          • Heh heh

        • fact police

          *What* has been done and done again? Ground source heat pumps are common, but they do not generate electricity. They consume electricity to transfer heat from a colder reservoir to a hotter. And the amount of heat they transfer is higher than the amount of electricity they consume, so the COP is greater than 1, often in the range of 3 or higher.

          Now, if there were hot springs under that parking lot, then it is possible they used the heat to generate electricity.

          • Ophelia Rump

            You are deliberately obtuse. Or beyond reason. Good fortune and good day.

      • Omega Z

        The Second Law should prepare to step aside.
        Current Heat Pump technology has obtained a COP=8 in lab settings with an ultimate goal of COP=30. With high enough temps for a 25% conversion to electricity.
        It not a matter of possible but whether or not it’s economically viable.
        As to the 2nd Law, Those doing the research say it is merely misapplied to heat pump technology.

        • fact police

          No one has shown that either of those equations for COP of an ideal heat pump (Th/deltaT) or the efficiency of an ideal heat engine (deltaT/Th) can be exceeded, which means the product can’t exceed 1.

          For a 25% efficient heat engine, you need something like 400 K, with a temperature difference of 100 K. The maximum heat pump efficiency providing heat at 400K from an ambient source around 300K is 4. So, as always, it’s a wash for ideal devices, and a loss for real ones.

          COPs of 8 or even 30 are not the problem, but if someone’s got COP of 8 at 400K using a source anywhere close to 300K, I’d like to see the reference, because that’s gonna make headlines.

          My money’s on the 2nd law, and I’d be delighted to take bets at any odds, assuming the return is better than an indexed investment (i.e. 15:1 / (number of years) or lower).

  • builditnow

    Correct, Install a air-conditioner capable of heating into our kitchen (inside, not in the window), measure the heat added to the kitchen, measure the electricity used and you will find that the room is heated “exactly” by the amount of electricity used. A 1000Watt electrical input air conditioner will heat your kitchen by exactly the electricity used regardless of whether you have it in heating or cooling mode because the cool air from one side is equal to the hot air on the other, plus the heat from motors and pumps.

    However, put a cold fusion generator in the room and you will find that the heat added to the room is the electricity used multiplied by the COP. If you put 1000Watt into a cold fusion reactor with a COP of 10 you heat the room by 10,000watts (or 11,000 watts depending on if the COP includes the 1000 watts input power).

    See the difference, the air-conditioner added 1000 watts, the cold fusion reactor 10 times as much.

    The secret is that the heat pump converts high grade energy in the form of electricity (capable of producing extreme temperatures, reference welders and so on) into a low grade heat (or cooling) that is a relatively small temperature difference compared to what the high grade energy of electricity can produce.

    If you take 1000 watts of electricity, run it through a heat pump, heating up some water from say 60F to 120F, then convert the 120F water back to electricity, you be lucky to get much energy back at all if you can even figure out a device get any energy out of the difference between 60F and 120F. That’s because the heat contained in the 120F water is low grade and that is why Rossi’s hot cat is so important, because at 600C (1112F) this higher grade heat capable of using a steam turbine to produce electricity in the region of 30%. That is 30% of the heat watts come back as electrical watts, that’s about the efficiency of a coal fired power station, newer one’s being a bit more efficient.

    Ultimately there is no comparison between a heat pump and fusion, hot or cold.
    Fusion is very high grade energy, witness the sun’s temperature.
    Cold Fusion is getting at this high grade energy without vaporizing everything in the neighborhood, witness a H bomb which uses fusion as it’s main source of energy.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      >>A 1000Watt electrical input air conditioner will heat your kitchen by exactly the electricity used regardless of whether you have it in heating or cooling mode because the cool air from one side is equal to the hot air on the other, plus the heat from motors and pumps.

      No, you get MORE then 1000 watts of heat. Imagine if the room next door has TONS of excess heat. You use a heat pump to only MOVE the heat. You will get MUCH MORE then just 1000 watts of heat. You think the cost of running a water pump in a hot water heating system = same as heat moved??? We only MOVING heat that already exists – we are NOT creating heat.

      I mean gosh, why on earth do they claim that heating with
      heat pumps has a COP > 1 then? We are MOVING heat. WHEN the cost of MOVING heat is LESS cost then creating that heat is when a heat pump has a COP > 1.
      The heat pump is NOT creating heat, but only moving it from one place to another.

      If the place you are MOVING the heat from is LESS cost
      then the energy required to move that heat, then you get a COP > 1.

      Heat pumps common achieve this result. So YES YOU DO get
      MORE heat then the 1000 watts spent – as much as 5 times. As the outside temperature drops – say below 0C, then the COP starts to rapid fall. This explains why heat pumps are not used in cold climates since the heat pump has to work VERY hard to extract (move) that heat from outside. You can still effective heat with temperatures down to say -8C, but you COP becomes 0, and at that point you likely best use that electric to drive a heater (coil) directly.

      This does suggest that in colder climates, then a ecat
      would be better then a heat pump. And as noted all bets are off if the ecat
      runs in self sustain mode – there not a COP anymore when that occurs.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Because if you run a heat pump in a gradient you can tap the gradient like a dam and take power from it’s flow.

        The device is not over unity, the system it is tapping provides power.

      • builditnow

        In the example above, I’m talking about having the air conditioner in the kitchen with both the hot air and the cold air circulating in the kitchen. I’m not in the example above talking about pumping heat from outside or another hot room into or out of the kitchen.
        Otherwise I’m agreeing with most of what Albert D. Kallal says.

  • jousterusa

    “…no free eat work here = no “free” at work here… “? Or, “no free eats here… “? Or, …”no free heat at work here…?”

    Signed,

    The Average Joe

    • Ophelia Rump

      Please phrase your response as a question.

      What do physicists and republicans have in common?

    • Ancientukscientist

      When I posted the original text, it read “there’s no Free Energy at work here!”. When transferred to ECW, it mysteriously became changed! I have no idea how this has happened. Ancientukscientist

  • Mark

    So what if it does break the laws of physics? I don’t mind, very much, as long as it works. Most people who can get free, or nearly free, energy are not going to give much of a damn about whether or not the machine runs on “magic,” “science,” some combination of those two, or if something else, entirely, is in the mix, nor should they.

  • US_Citizen71

    Possibly, if you can find a working fluid and heat pump that can handle the temperatures.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Lonnie Johnson’s JTEC converts heat into electricity.

    It’s not free energy but it might be thought of as an “electricity pump”. (at 9:55)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y39WNUdbkM

    • Ophelia Rump

      If the JTEC can convert 60 percent of the power, it is much more efficient than a turbine generator. However requiring a temperature differential of 600 degrees Centigrade is a severe limitation. That high temperature differential suggests that the other 40 percent of wasted heat is the portion under 600 C, If you second stage this with something lower temperature, like the turbine, you might get even higher efficiency. That is amazing technology.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Lonnie Johnson’s JTEC converts heat into electricity.

    It’s not free energy but it might be thought of as an “electricity pump”. (at 9:55)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y39WNUdbkM

    • bachcole

      I notice that he gave that speech 10 days ago. I look forward to him bringing those two technologies to market.

    • Ophelia Rump

      If the JTEC can convert 60 percent of the power, it is much more efficient than a turbine generator. However requiring a temperature differential of 600 degrees Centigrade is a severe limitation. That high temperature differential suggests that the other 40 percent of wasted heat is the portion under 600 C, If you second stage this with something lower temperature, like the turbine, you might get even higher efficiency. That is amazing technology.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Yes, I can see how that would be the ultimate in vaporization, larger droplets would be spun out to the higher temperature wall and microparticles would be cooled into a dense vapor cloud in the center. If they are using a true vortex tube, then they would need to route the hot gas back into the input tube.

    The device he is selling is very clever using the wound tubing to create a vortex.

    I was thinking of making an HHO gas generator. I would like to take up glass flame working but the torch equipment costs too much. If I had HHO I could make an entire flame working torch system for about one hundred and fifty dollars. And not have to deal with large heavy tanks of oxygen and propane.

  • Ophelia Rump

    That is an exact description of a high horsepower Sterling engine used in waste heat recovery and solar power towers.

  • Obvious

    Moving existing heat energy and claiming a COP>1 is like delivering gasoline in a jerry can by a remote controlled, battery operated toy car, pouring it and lighting it up, and saying that those batteries have a COP of >10000 because the delivered heat potential is so high compared to the battery power consumed, while conveniently ignoring that the gasoline had to come from somewhere.

    • BroKeeper

      Perhaps many here can see the ‘Obvious’, became an epiphany to me: Why are there no domestic ‘symbiotic’ thermal dynamic systems devised? This occurred to me after I had purchased a GE heat pump water heater. It extracts the heat from the ambient temperature and expels the cold air back into the already somewhat cool basement air.

      I thought what a waste of coolant. Then ‘eureka’ it pierced my skull. What if I recycle the cool air throughout the house?

      I cut out a large square intake window in the return duck just above the filter with an installed controlled grill (to close during the winter months). Leaving the fan running
      continuously has saved ~30% on our summer month’s electric bills. As far as I see it I went over unity with unity.

      So why doesn’t the heating/cooling companies develop shared heat transference systems between refrigerators, water heaters and heating/cooling heat pumps with a central exchange unit? Or have they and the utility companies put a nix on it? Oh well, it may all be a mute subject soon. Have a delightfully cool summer everyone.

      • Obvious

        Once better, high temp superconductors are readily available, heat can be “pumped” wherever, nearly lossless.

        • BroKeeper

          Awesome, perhaps with all the efficient technologies being developed maybe energy will be virtually free with only a 5KW or less E-Cat.

      • Charles

        Why doesn’t BroKeeper entrepreneur that and get filthy. Rich that is.

    • well said.
      all energy sources can be interpreted with COP.
      a nuclear power plant, a furnace, even a barbecue need some energy to work… energy which is covered by what it produce.

      COP is badly interpreted.
      the most stupid skeptic argument is that (because of using COP word) LENr does violate conservation of energy.
      Lack of intelligence cannot be called as often the skeptic have above college education, and it is pure lack of honesty.

      I propose an image for LENR COP:

      imagine you have electric mining machine, that mine coal in a coal mine…
      you gather coal and burn it…
      you have a COP : how much BTU for how much electricity consumed by the mining machine ?

      the electricity getting inside an F&P cell, an E-cat, is no more than the equivalent of power for the mining machine (and the furnace) that prepare cold fusion ingredient to be consumed (probably a kind of nuclear fusion).

      again I am fascinated by the apparent (only apparent) stupidity of skeptic argument that even PhD still use… don’t imagine it is stupidity. it is worse, it is “sure to be right so I can try to fool the masses with absurd arguments”.

  • Obvious

    Moving existing heat energy and claiming a COP>1 is like delivering gasoline in a jerry can by a remote controlled, battery operated toy car, pouring it and lighting it up, and saying that those batteries have a COP of >10000 because the delivered heat potential is so high compared to the battery power consumed, while conveniently ignoring that the gasoline had to come from somewhere.

    • Brokeeper

      Perhaps many here seeing the ‘Obvious’, became an epiphany to me: Why are there no domestic ‘symbiotic’ thermal dynamic systems devised? This occurred to me after I had purchased a GE heat pump water heater. It extracts the heat from the ambient temperature and expels the cold air back into the already somewhat cool basement air.

      I thought what a waste of coolant. Then ‘eureka’ it pierced my skull. What if I recycle the cool air throughout the house?

      I cut out a large square intake window in the return duck just above the filter with an installed controlled grill (to close during the winter months). Leaving the fan running
      continuously has saved ~30% on our summer month’s electric bills. As far as I see it I went over unity with unity.

      So why doesn’t the heating/cooling companies develop shared heat transference systems between refrigerators, water heaters and heating/cooling heat pumps with a central exchange unit? Or have they and the utility companies put a nix on it? Oh well, it may all be a mute subject soon. Have a delightfully cool summer everyone.

      • Obvious

        Once better, high temp superconductors are readily available, heat can be “pumped” wherever, nearly lossless.

        • Brokeeper

          Awesome, perhaps with all the efficient technologies being developed maybe energy will be virtually free with only a 5KW or less E-Cat.

      • bachcole

        Here is “theoretical evidence”. I know that baby chicks grow from eggs, and they have to live off of that egg for a long time without garnering any food from outside of the egg. Therefore, it is highly likely that eggs are full of vitality and very good for people. Turns out I am right. But my hunch about eggs being nutrient dense is not evidence or proof, it is just an intuition or a hunch.

        • Brokeeper

          I sense goose eggs have a greater nutrient density. 🙂

          • bachcole

            Goose eggs are probably closer to nature; chickens have had a lot of breeding. And geese are almost always free ranged. So, I agree with you. (:->)

      • Charles

        Why doesn’t BroKeeper entrepreneur that and get filthy. Rich that is.

    • well said.
      all energy sources can be interpreted with COP.
      a nuclear power plant, a furnace, even a barbecue need some energy to work… energy which is covered by what it produce.

      COP is badly interpreted.
      the most stupid skeptic argument is that (because of using COP word) LENr does violate conservation of energy.
      Lack of intelligence cannot be called as often the skeptic have above college education, and it is pure lack of honesty.

      I propose an image for LENR COP:

      imagine you have electric mining machine, that mine coal in a coal mine…
      you gather coal and burn it…
      you have a COP : how much BTU for how much electricity consumed by the mining machine ?

      the electricity getting inside an F&P cell, an E-cat, is no more than the equivalent of power for the mining machine (and the furnace) that prepare cold fusion ingredient to be consumed (probably a kind of nuclear fusion).

      again I am fascinated by the apparent (only apparent) stupidity of skeptic argument that even PhD still use… don’t imagine it is stupidity. it is worse, it is “sure to be right so I can try to fool the masses with absurd arguments”.

  • Job001

    To correct misconceptions;
    COP does not represent ability to do work. The ability to do work is excellent for electricity(maybe 95% for an excellent motor or generator) and very poor for COP(maybe zero, often 15% or so).
    COP heat must be run through a “heat engine” to get electricity back out. The amount of electricity possible is always less than the Carnot efficiency which is the temperature difference between the high and low sources divided by the absolute temperature of the high source.
    Eff= (Delta T)/Abs(T).

    Since temperature drop happens across heat exchangers, reversing a heat pump to generate electricity will not get as much electrical energy back as the heat pump used. Thus we know that the church example did not use the same amount of time or sink/source arrangement if a net gain occurred. Heat pumps cannot normally be looped successfully but can be operated with geothermal or solar or day/night temperature differences.

    No laws of physics are violated. Additionally, if nuclear energy is created as likely in LENR, no laws of physics are broken, even if a COP of 100 is attained. Nuclear energy comes from mass conversion(E=MC^2) and the physics equations allow for nuclear energy when it does occur.

  • Ophelia Rump

    You can have evidence which supports a theory, but “theoretical evidence” would be an awkward description of that. Non-observable(hypothetical, theoretical) evidence sounds like conjecture or preconceived notions to me, and nothing like evidence at all.

    I would have to extend your statement to say that “theoretical evidence” is simply a contradiction in terms. Under all circumstances.

  • JJK

    Why fkn write a whole essay on this topic. “Average joe” is a choice in this digital world.
    All people on this site have at least a Master degreeeeee.

    “It is simple as this: Heat pump COP ( Coefficient of performance) is not the ratio of input energy-to-output energy (E-CAT measurement is based on this ratio), which is definitely not more than 1 in any heat pump system.

    COP_heating = T_hot/(T_hot – T_cold)

    COP_cooling = T_cold/(T_hot – T_cold)

    COP (Coefficient of performance) is how efficient the heat pump system, and is NOT a measurement of how much input energy in and how much output energy.

    “As the formula shows, the COP of a heat pump system can be improved by reducing the temperature gap minus at which the system works.

    Note that the COP of a heat pump depends on its duty the heat rejected to the hot sink is greater than the heat absorbed from the cold source, so the heating COP is 1 greater than the cooling COP.”– wikipedo

  • if you read the book of ed storms (science of lenr) in the 2nd chapter, you find description of various “authors” who wrote skeptic books.

    Huizenga is one who simply cannot imagine that his theory is incomplete (he mix incomplete with wrong) so challenge all evidences.

    Gary taubes as Ed Storms describesjust wrote that book to make money and write for Broadway. Jed say moreover he make college level mistakes.

    Morrison ins the titanic paper of jed rothwell is described as clearly incompetent and unable to admit it.

    Lewis and hansen, in their paper took good points but refused to admit that it was oly their own setup which was flawed.
    Wilson was very competent but could not admit he did not explain the most powerful experiments.

    denial of cold fusion is thus a mix of
    – preference to theory over reality (very common)
    – incompetence
    – inability to admit ones errors
    – greed

    note that Beaudette and Storms in their books explain well the many communication errors of F&P (not sharing data, not participating conference where they were criticized, mistake out of calorimetry) and the numerous errors of LENr experimentators that are used to destroy the whole field.

    really you should read “the science of LENR” by ed storms. as much as beaudette excess heat.

  • Gerrit

    [OT]

    Wikipedia editor ScienceApologist is back editing the cold fusion article with his new username

    QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV

    This user has been banned and blocked numerous times, has used sockputtets, ip edits to wreck havoc on the cold fusion article. He is a champion at gaming the system and has been instrumental at getting many editors kicked of the project.

    Apparently wikipedia has granted him yet another chance.

    Let us all watch and see how, over the course of several months, his edit behavior will reveal his real intentions by gradually, incrementally, tilting the article into a full debunker story.

    • georgehants

      There are still I notice people on these pages that quote this disgraced source of information, it is proven to censor and distort Evidence.
      I would ask why the science administration does not inform all it’s members to ignore all Wiki- rubbish and move on to trusted sources of information.

  • Gerrit

    [OT]

    Wikipedia editor ScienceApologist is back editing the cold fusion article with his new username

    QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV

    This user has been banned and blocked numerous times, has used sockpuppets, ip edits to wreck havoc on the cold fusion article. He is a champion at gaming the system and has been instrumental at getting many editors kicked off the project.

    Apparently wikipedia has granted him yet another chance.

    Let us all watch and see how, over the course of several months, his edit behavior will reveal his real intentions by gradually, incrementally, tilting the article into a full debunker story.

    • georgehants

      There are still I notice people on these pages that quote this reportedly disgraced source of information, it is reportedly proven to censor and distort Evidence.
      I would ask why the science administration does not inform all it’s members to ignore all of Wiki- rubbish and move on to truthful sources of information, if there are any in science.

  • georgehants

    From Cold Fusion Now
    Open Power Association Newsletter #12: 400+ parameter tests and a model
    http://coldfusionnow.org/open-power-association-newsletter-12-400-parameter-tests-and-a-model/

  • georgehants

    From Cold Fusion Now
    Open Power Association Newsletter #12: 400+ parameter tests and a model
    http://coldfusionnow.org/open-power-association-newsletter-12-400-parameter-tests-and-a-model/

  • georgehants

    I notice on this page and many before that science does not seem to have any clear idea of what this thing referred to as COP. means.
    Just interesting for a non-scientist like myself that after 300+ years of dealing with steam engines etc. no clear consensus (ha) has managed to be arrived at.

    • Ophelia Rump

      You blame science for the ignorance of commentators.
      What justice is there in that?

      • georgehants

        Ophelia, If that is so please put up a definitive explanation of COP that a non-scientist like my self can appreciate.
        Thank you.
        ——–
        If you can’t explain what you’re doing and why you’re
        doing it to any intelligent layman, that really means
        that you don’t understand it yourself.
        Allan Bromley, former President of the American Physical
        Society

        • Ophelia Rump

          Gladly Georgehants, thank you for asking!

          COP is Coefficient Of Performance: COP is a ratio of work performed, or energy generated, to energy consumed by the device to make it work.

          COP = Resulting Energy used or generated from a system, divided by the energy input to make that happen. Not including the fuel.

          A waterfall has a COP which approximates infinite.

          Put one hundred foot pounds of work into producing a roaring furnace full of coal, get ten thousand foot pounds of work out and you have a COP of 100 for the entire system. The input was the work performed loading the coal into the furnace, not the power of the coal.

          If someone says the device has a COP greater than one either their language is sloppy and they did not account for the fact that there is a fuel source, or they are deluded.

          A device cannot have a COP over 1, only a system can, any system or machine will suffer losses. Crackpots are easily spotted because their free and infinite energy devices have no energy source specified.

          For a Hot-Cat the input energy is the electricity input to control the nuclear reaction, it does not include the actual fuel which is the nickle hydrogen reaction. (Not crackpot, the fuel source is specified we are talking about a system, not a device when referring to COP.)

          If you power the LENR reactor off of output electrical power from the reactor, the COP approximates infinite. The fuel source is not infinite, only the ratio of control power to output power because in a virtual sense there is no external power required to sustain the reaction.

          People often seem to confuse COP with efficiency.
          Efficiency is the amount of the total power of input energy and Fuel used by the system in ratio to the work actually performed, and can never be over 1, or unity. There will always be losses to efficiency in a system or machine.

          • georgehants

            Many thanks, as you will understand I have no interest in understanding how COP etc. is calculated, I only wish to be able to hear a scientist say it is COP 1 or COP 100, and know what that means in general terms.
            My complaint, as I am sure you can see is that there seems to be nothing but arguments over this Cop thing.
            Sorry and thank you for the work you have put above, I hope that clears things up for those on page that wish to learn and will stop all the going round and round.
            Best

  • georgehants

    I notice on this page and many before that science does not seem to have any clear idea of what this thing referred to as COP. means.
    Just interesting for a non-scientist like myself that after 300+ years of dealing with steam engines etc. no clear consensus (ha) has managed to be arrived at.

    • Ophelia Rump

      You blame science for the ignorance of commentators.
      What justice is there in that?

      • georgehants

        Ophelia, If that is so please put up a definitive explanation of COP that a non-scientist like myself can appreciate.
        Thank you.
        ——–
        If you can’t explain what you’re doing and why you’re
        doing it to any intelligent layman, that really means
        that you don’t understand it yourself.
        Allan Bromley, former President of the American Physical
        Society

        • Ophelia Rump

          Gladly Georgehants, thank you for asking!

          COP is Coefficient Of Performance: COP is a ratio of work performed, or energy generated, to energy consumed by the device to make it work.

          I think Cop Is coefficent of power which would be the efficiency.
          This seems to be very confusing, and may just be an misinterpretation of COP. The windmill people use this Cop meaning Coefficient of power, not the COP Coefficient Of Performance.

          COP = Resulting Energy used or generated from a system, divided by the energy input to make that happen. Not including the fuel. COP would not include wasted energy.

          A watermill has a COP which approximates infinite.

          Put one hundred foot pounds of work into producing a roaring furnace full of coal, get ten thousand foot pounds of work out and you have a COP of 100 for the entire system. The input was the work performed loading the coal into the furnace, not the power of the coal.

          If someone says the device has a COP greater than one either their language is sloppy and they did not account for the fact that there is a fuel source, or they are deluded.

          A device cannot have a COP over 1, only a system can, any system or machine will suffer losses. Crackpots are easily spotted because their free and infinite energy devices have no energy source specified. A crackpot could specify an energy source and still be a crackpot: Refer to: gravity wheel for details.

          For a Hot-Cat the input energy is the electricity input to control the nuclear reaction, it does not include the actual fuel which is the nickle hydrogen reaction. (Not crackpot, the fuel source is specified we are talking about a system, not a device when referring to COP.)

          If you power the LENR reactor off of output electrical power from the reactor, the COP approximates infinite. The fuel source is not infinite, only the ratio of control power to output power because in a virtual sense there is no external power required to sustain the reaction.

          People often seem to confuse COP with efficiency.
          Efficiency is the amount of the total power of input energy and Fuel used by the system in ratio to the work actually performed, and can never be over 1, or unity. There will always be losses to efficiency in a system or machine.

          That was hard work Georgehants, you owe me a good story for that.
          As usual this is the best I can come up with for an answer. You are quite right the use of these terms appears to be horrendously abused.

          • georgehants

            Many thanks, as you will understand I have no interest in understanding how COP etc. is calculated, I only wish to be able to hear a scientist say it is COP 1 or COP 100, and know what that means in general terms.
            My complaint, as I am sure you can see is that there seems to be nothing but arguments on page over this Cop thing.
            Sorry and thank you for the work you have put in above, I hope that clears things up for those on page that wish to learn and will stop all the going round and round.
            Best

    • Ancientukscientist

      Dare I venture to suggest that COP is the figure that a Salesman would quote in order to sell the Apparatus to you. (SMILE)

      In the case of the domestic fridge, if it uses electricity at a rate of 100 watts and achieves 300 watts of cooling, the COP would be 3 (Modern fridges can get as high as COP=6)

      Of course, as I pointed out in the text of my post, if you take into account everything which is really taking place, there is no “free lunch” taking place.

      Nevertheless, the COP figure reflects what you, the user, would get – in this case, three times more cooling power than the electrical power you pay for!

      Sometimes, we lose sight of our humanity, trying always to be ultra perfect – the COP figure is a nice kickback against that – it’s a very “human” sort of number.

  • Omega Z

    Heat Pumps do “Not” create energy. They move it from 1 place to another. COP in this instance is about how efficient it does this work. the COP=# is a variable. For instance in home heating, Once the outside temp drops low enough, It can cost more to move what little heat is in the air then if you just run it as an electric heater. In other words, COP=Negative.

    To counter this issue, they developed the Geothermal Heat Pump. Pulling the heat from the ground where temperatures are more stable. Depending on location & depth, I believe the average is about 55’F. This is also why Rossi now prefers to use input energy verses output. COP can be misleading depending on how it’s interrupted where as energy in/out is more specific.

  • Omega Z

    Heat Pumps do “Not” create energy. They move it from 1 place to another. COP in this instance is about how efficient it does this work. the COP=# is a variable. For instance in home heating, Once the outside temp drops low enough, It can cost more to move what little heat is in the air then if you just run it as an electric heater. In other words, COP=Negative.

    To counter this issue, they developed the Geothermal Heat Pump. Pulling the heat from the ground where temperatures are more stable. Depending on location & depth, I believe the average is about 55’F. This is also why Rossi now prefers to use input energy verses output. COP can be misleading depending on how it’s interrupted where as energy in/out is more specific.

  • georgehants

    This is the fool who has been advised by his wonderful scientific “experts” to not fund Research into the new science of Cold Fusion etc, to not pay the unemployed to manufacture and fit solar cells to every available roof etc. to make the UK more Energy independent.
    This is the fool that instead takes the course of pouring billions into corrupt capitalism to build deadly radiation emitters in the British countryside.
    Well done all our scientific advisers.
    ———-
    Scientists praise outgoing UK science minister
    Leading voices from the UK scientific community were quick to praise Willetts.
    “David Willetts is one of the UK’s sharpest and most talented
    politicians; we’ve been extraordinarily privileged to have him as the
    UK’s science minister for the past four years,” said Imran Khan, chief
    executive of the British Science Association and former director of the
    Campaign for Science and Engineering, in a statement.
    http://blogs.nature.com/news/2014/07/scientists-praise-outgoing-uk-science-minister.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NatureNewsComment+%28Nature+News+%26+Comment%29

  • georgehants

    This is the fool who has been advised by his wonderful scientific “experts” to not fund Research into the new science of Cold Fusion etc, to not pay the unemployed to manufacture and fit solar cells to every available roof etc. to make the UK more Energy independent.
    This is the fool that instead takes the course of pouring billions into corrupt capitalism to build deadly radiation emitters in the British countryside.
    Well done all our scientific advisers.
    ———-
    Scientists praise outgoing UK science minister
    Leading voices from the UK scientific community were quick to praise Willetts.
    “David Willetts is one of the UK’s sharpest and most talented
    politicians; we’ve been extraordinarily privileged to have him as the
    UK’s science minister for the past four years,” said Imran Khan, chief
    executive of the British Science Association and former director of the
    Campaign for Science and Engineering, in a statement.
    http://blogs.nature.com/news/2014/07/scientists-praise-outgoing-uk-science-minister.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NatureNewsComment+%28Nature+News+%26+Comment%29

  • Ophelia Rump

    You are deliberately obtuse. Or beyond reason. Good fortune and good day.

  • Ophelia Rump

    You compound your ignorance like interest and think you are rich.

  • Barry8

    Whatever the COP the real Cold Fusion bargain is going from chemical to nuclear. Chemically produced, steady energy used to jump start a nuclear reaction. At no point is there something from nothing.

  • Whatever the COP the real Cold Fusion bargain is going from chemical to nuclear. Chemically produced, steady energy used to jump start a nuclear reaction. At no point is there something from nothing.

  • BroKeeper

    I sense goose eggs have a greater nutrient density. 🙂

  • Albert D. Kallal

    > But I though that a self-looped heat pump would not require input
    either. If it does, what do you mean by a self-looped heat pump?

    The logic and thinking here is quite much in the context of this discussion. You have a running heat pump machine that yields more energy then the input energy. (the semantics of the fact that we are moving heat is much moot).
    All that maters here is we get in our hands MORE energy out then
    our input cost. So when I say self loop, by logic and reason I am simply stating we take the energy heat output and run some type of generator. The electric output of the generator is thus used to drive the heat pump and ALSO give us additional energy to run appliances etc.

    As noted, such a “box” is entirety possible. The only
    remaining issues are how much of a heat difference and COP do we need to build such a box.

    Likely its not practical that such a magic box yields enough
    excess energy in a typical heat pump system and typical climate, but certainly with high enough heat differentials, such a system becomes rather feasible and possible.

    So the “self loop” is not the heat cycle, but taking the
    excess heat and running a generator. The output of the generator is thus looped back to the heat pump. Such a system is most certainly able to not only produce enough energy to run the heat pump, but also produce excess energy for your enjoyment and use.