Cavitation (sonofusion) reactor from B-J. Huang et al.

In a combine cycle power plant (gas turbines, heat recovery steam generator and high steam pressure and low steam pressure turbines) there are two methane gas turbines. Each is about two stories high. The gas turbines are designed to take advantage of the inflow air to keep the turbine blades well below the flame temperature.

In 2016, GE manufactured a combined cycle power plant with an efficiency of 62.22%. This went straight into the Guinness World Records as the most efficient at that time. What makes combined cycle power plants so efficient? (araner.com)

When considering the future of LENR one would be wise to consider this benchmark.

Quote from bjhuang

this kind of so-called "radiation shield" has ever been considered by us when we feel something strange in energy balance during LENR and some strange results of SEM/EDX on the ruptured copper pipe. just wait and see with more test results.

Have you found any correlation between the velocity of fluid receiving the heat and the amount of Neon/CO2 produced?

Regarding Lenr fuel,you can't take in account the maximum power available which will melt every thing very quickly.

The total power will be the same as chemistry for an equivalent equipment but consumption will be 10exp 6 lower.

5 liters for 100kms for a current car engine vs less than 1mm3 about Lenr.

Quote from JedRothwell

The same thing that made triple-expansion marine steam engines so efficient. The same heat is tapped multiple times, first as high grade heat, then medium, then low grade heat.

I disagree. There is no need to make cold fusion reactors highly efficient. On the contrary, it would best to trade off efficiency for low cost. The fuel costs nothing, so you do not save any money by making them more efficient. There is no point to making them more than ~30% efficient, which is about the efficiency of fission reactors, which also have very cheap fuel. Fission reactors cannot be more efficient. The zirconium cladding would melt. But the low temperatures and low efficiency also prolong the life of the generating equipment. They will also prolong the life of cold fusion generators and space heaters.

If they were 10% efficient, that would produce a lot of waste heat which would be tricky to get rid of. The machines would run hot and require large cooling fans. They would be bulky. 25% would make them roughly the size of an automobile engine and radiator, per kilowatt of capacity.

See:

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJmoreaboutw.pdf

Display More

Quote from JedRothwell

See:

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJmoreaboutw.pdf

B J Huang's work is important because it addresses your assumptions which are debatable. Namely LENR can provide a power density for a heat engine with reasonable Carnot efficiency. A combined cycle plant is more efficient because is converts more heat to energy in multiple heat cycles not because it uses the same heat more. The process is still limited by entropy. Heat recovery and vapor recompression are essential to that process.

Another failing of LENR is heat from electricity without accounting for the efficiency of heat to electricity. Look at HHO gas, these processes are accused of not being over unity. Santilli build a multi-million-dollar profitable business on basis they are over unity, but when the business was taken over by people who ignored that the energy originated by nuclear reaction, they designed equipment ignoring a truth they could not understand, or measure and they drove the business to bankruptcy.

LENR in B J Huang's work does not have to have this second failing because the heat that drives the LENR does not have to originate with electricity. So, the COP from table one below might be used via vapor recompression to get a high Carnot efficient to achieve the expectation you set.

The average COP for experiment with nuclear reactions was 1.36. You say it doesn't need to be more than ~30%. Therefore, these results are very exciting. One expects to recovery the excess heat, use part of it for power production and recycle enough to keep the LENR going.

If vapor recompression can be used to prove via closed cycle the excess heat due to LENR, then that result should provide a reliable proof of concept. Of course, it needs to be reproducible, and the life of the equipment needs to be cost effective.

Quote from JedRothwell

The steam is first high grade (high pressure, with lots of enthalpy), then medium, then low. The last cylinder is very large.

And after that comes the condenser...and vacuum.

Quote from JedRothwell

Everyone accounts for this. It is Carnot efficiency. At a given temperature it is the same with all heat engines. It makes no difference whether the heat comes from combustion, fission, or cold fusion.

To make a true complete cycle comparison, if the heat (electrical power) to drive LENR comes from electrical power, then the true heat input needs to consider the efficiency of production of electrical power from heat. Hence, there is need for a correction of at least the efficiency of heat to power of combined cycle power plant. So, if COP is 1.3 based on electrical heat to heat output, then the true efficiency would be 1.3 x .62 =0.81 which is not enough to be sustainable. In contrast when burning AquaFuel the heat/torque compared to heat predicted from chemical composition is 3.03 which is just barely sustainable with combined cycle power design. For AquaFuel, there is still the question of how much of the heat is produced to produce Aquafuel and how cost effective is the carbon fuel used to produce it. In the case of a cost to dispose of the organic material, then the cost of fuel is a not issue, so heat produced in AquaFuel production is the bonus that make a profit.

Of course, the issue goes away if LENR can be run as a sustained reaction at high temperature. Perhaps Brillant Light Power has succeeded. We will see. I would welcome a result that suggests a true complete cycle from anyone, including Egley or LEC.

Quote from Drgenek

To make a true complete cycle comparison, if the heat (electrical power) to drive LENR comes from electrical power, then the true heat input needs to consider the efficiency of production of electrical power from heat. Hence, there is need for a correction of at least the efficiency of heat to power of combined cycle power plant. So, if COP is 1.3 based on electrical heat to heat output, then the true efficiency would be 1.3 x .62 =0.81 which is not enough to be sustainable. In contrast when burning AquaFuel the heat/torque compared to heat predicted from chemical composition is 3.03 which is just barely sustainable with combined cycle power design. For AquaFuel, there is still the question of how much of the heat is produced to produce Aquafuel and how cost effective is the carbon fuel used to produce it. In the case of a cost to dispose of the organic material, then the cost of fuel is a not issue, so heat produced in AquaFuel production is the bonus that make a profit.

Of course, the issue goes away if LENR can be run as a sustained reaction at high temperature. Perhaps Brillant Light Power has succeeded. We will see. I would welcome a result that suggests a true complete cycle from anyone, including Egley or LEC.

I have estimated that the steam power generation cycle will be sustainable (without input from conventional energy) if COP > 5.0. this may require several years development. But, in near future, maybe within 5 years, a significant energy saving of steam power plant (> 20%) is possible when LENR reaches COP > 2.5. the waste heat can also be utilized in seawater desalination.