System Coefficient of Performance COP and System Efficiency
See again footnote 11 in Chapter 1 and Appendix A. In 1915, general relativity in fact destroyed several of the fundamental definitions (axioms) of classical thermodynamics. It necessitated our correction of some thermodynamical definitions (open system and closed system) and our more rigorous definitions of COP and efficiency advanced below.
Once mass is recognized as energy and the two are just different sides of the same coin, there can be no thermodynamically closed system which passes energy across the system boundary without passing mass across it. Any system changing its rate of flow through time also changes its mass and its energy, and vice versa. Energy has mass characteristics, and any mass system with added or subtracted energy — either kinetic or potential
45 Many Bohrentype experiments are continually done in nonlinear optical labs in universities and elsewhere. The effect (excess radiation from the medium) is euphemistically called "negative absorption of the medium," "negative resonance absorption of the medium," etc. Such terminology avoids clearly recognizing that more energy is output than the scientists (erroneously) calculate was input. Bohren faced the issue headon, and clearly stated that more energy was output than was input (or than was thought to be input).
46 A true pessimist might point out that it may be quite understandable, considering that it solidly blocks COP>1.0 EM electrical power systems and electrogravitational antigravity systems from being developed by our universities, which would solve the energy and transportation crises forever. Thereby it also keeps about $1.5 to 2 trillion a year pouring into the coffers of controlling financial groups behind many great interlocking corporations.
— will also change its mass relativistically as well as its other characteristics such as inertia and gravitational attraction. As pointed out by Logunov and Loskutov {635}, in 1917 the new characteristics of general relativity led Hilbert {632} to observe that in general relativity there can be no energy conservation rules of the usual classical kind. This also follows from our consideration of the supersystem with multiple active environments rather than a single active environment.
We have formally destroyed any absoluteness of the present classical thermodynamics, which is just an imperfect model. It is a special case which can be approached but never completely reached in a real dynamic system.
With that in mind, we now more exactly define coefficient ofperformance and efficiency of a system.
The term "coefficient of performance" (COP) is a ratio whereby the useful energetic output performance of the system is characterized purely with respect to the operator's energy input. Simply put, it represents "how much you get for what you have to input yourself and pay for". It does not characterize the performance of the system with respect to the total energy inputfrom all sources. For our purpose, in general there are two major ways of expressing this COP:
(a) COP == (work accomplished in the load during a representative time of operation) divided by (energy input by the operator during that representative time of operation). Or for short, COP = (useful work out in the load) + {operator's energy input). We stress that there may be other free inputs of energy to the system, in addition to the operator's input, but only the operator's input is accounted in the COP calculation.
(b) COP == (average power out in the load) divided by (average power input by the operator) .47 Again, there may be additional average power inputs that are freely input from the environment, without cost to the operator, but only the operator's input is accounted. We stress that "power input" is
47 This is in standard electrical engineering terminology, which is mangled. For a more precise physics statement of (b), COP == (the average rate at which the system dissipates energy in its load to do useful work) / (the average rate at which the operator must furnish energy to be dissipated as work in the input section of the system to make it operate and do its output work).
another of electrical engineering's misnomers, but we use it here because it is universally used in power system engineering.
For a system such as a transducer, which merely changes the form of the energy in some fashion and does not perform work in an external load (the transducer is its own load), we may express the COP as a. COP == (effective energy output) / (energy input by the operator). Here we accent that there may be additional energy inputs to the system from the active environment, and these inputs are "free" and are not input by the operator, so they are not accounted in the COP calculation.
b. COP == (average power output) / (average power input by the operator). Again, additional average power inputs may be freely received from the environment, but they are not accounted in the COP calculation.
The "efficiency" E of a system is a ratio less than or equal to 1.0 (or a percentage less than 100%), where E indicates the percentage of the total input energy (from all sources) that is dissipated in the load as useful work. It follows that (7  E) indicates the percentage of the total input energy that is dissipated in the internal losses in the system, not directly resulting in useful work by the system in its load. So the efficiency E of a system may be expressed as:
E == (total work output in the load during a representative operational period) / (total energy input to the system, from all sources, during that period).
b. E == (average power output in the load) / (average energy rate of input to the system, from all sources, during that representative operational period.).
We accent that no system can have an efficiency greater than 100%, for then it would be "creating energy from nothing" {147}. No system can dissipate or convert energy that it does not first receive. The conservation of energy law states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. This means that there actually are no energy sources per se, in the sense that the source creates the energy, even though we use the terms "energy a.
source" and "source of energy" informally. E.g., Semiz {148} states it this way:
"The very expression 'energy source' is actually a misnomer. As is known since the early days of thermodynamics, and formulated as the first law, energy is conserved in any physical process. Since energy cannot be created or destroyed, nothing can be an energy source, or sink. Devices we call energy sources do not create energy, they convert it from a form not suitable for our needs to aform that is suitable, a form we can do work with."
A medium inefficient system can easily have a COP>1.0, if it receives additional energy from its active environment, and if that extra free energy is sufficient to overcome its internal inefficiency losses. An example is a common windmill, where a very good one may have an efficiency of less than 50% due to friction and drag losses in the gears and wind spillage losses in the blades, etc. Yet the operator himself does not have to input any energy at all, for the windmill to operate continually. In this case, the COP»1.0 and approaches infinity, but the efficiency of the windmill is still less than 50%.
Another example is the home heat pump, which may also have an efficiency of less than 50%. When acting as a refrigerator, its theoretical maximum COP = 8.22 under nominal conditions {149}, and a welldesigned 50%efficient home heat pump will produce COP = 4.0 when conditions are suitable.
On the other hand, if the only net energy input to the system is that energy that the operator inputs, then the COP < 1.0. This is a system in equilibrium with respect to any energy exchange with its external environment — except with respect to the energy input by the operator (i.e., with respect to its "fueling" by the operator, so to speak) and with respect to the energy subsequently dissipated in the loads and losses. If the system is 100% efficient (has no internal losses or conversion losses at all), its COP = 1.0. Almost all real systems do have internal losses, so their efficiency is E < 100%. In that case, the system in equilibrium with its environment, and having E < 100%, will also exhibit COP<1.0
irrevocably. Indeed, the same number will give both the efficiency E and the COP, because numerically they are then the same.48
For electromagnetic systems, the state of confusion between efficiency E of the system and the COP of the system is due to one fact. Numerically the two are always equal in equilibrium systems — and the Lorentz regauging condition enforced by the closed current loop circuit selfenforces the equilibrium condition of the system with respect to its active environment. Because electrical engineers usually have zero experience with COP>1.0 electrical systems, they tend to loosely and erroneously use the two terms "efficiency" and "COP" as if they meant the same thing. They do not.
Now suppose that we have an open system, far from equilibrium in its energy exchange with its active environment. Suppose that the system's efficiency E is very poor, so that E = 20%. Now suppose that the environment inputs twice as much energy as does the operator. Let the operator's energy input be E1. Then the total energy input to the system, from both the operator and the environment, is 3Ei. The efficiency is only 20%, so the system outputs W, as work in the load, of W = 0.2(3E1) = 0.6 E1. The COP of the system is the work out divided by the operator's input, which is COP = W/E1, which is COP = 0.6 E1 / E1 which gives COP = 0.6. As can be seen, even though this system receives twice as much additional free energy as what the operator inputs, it is so inefficient that its COP<1.0.
Suppose we have a similar system with the same energy inputs from the operator and from the environment, but now the system's efficiency E is E = 90%. Then the total energy input to the system, from both the operator and the environment, is 3E1. The efficiency is 90%, so the system outputs W, as work in the load, of W = 0.9(3E1 ) = 2.7 E1. The COP of the system is the work out divided by the operator's input, which is COP = W/E1, which is COP = 2.7 E1 / E1, which gives COP = 2.7. As can be seen, a more efficient system in the same energy input situation, now outputs more work than the energy input by the operator. Energy is conserved at all times; the excess energy for the additional work was in fact freely input
48 We emphasize that COP and efficiency are two quite different concepts, however, even when their numerical values are the same. A 6foot tall man and a 6foot tall door have the same number for their height, but only a fool would consider them the "same thing". 96
to the system — which is an "open" system far from equilibrium in its exchange with its active environment.
Thus a system far from equilibrium in its energetic exchange with its active environment, is permitted to exhibit COP>1.0 even though its efficiency is always less than 100%. On the other hand, if the system is very inefficient and the energy input from the environment is not too great, the system will still exhibit COP<1.0. But the operator will pay less for his energy costs to operate that inefficient system, than he would pay to operate it if he himself had to furnish all the energy input.
Two cautions are emphasized:
(a) First, electrical engineers use the term "power" to mean "energy flow rate without dissipation or change of form", as well as "energy flow dissipation and change of form rate." This is inexact and unfortunate, but it appears ubiquitously throughout the electrical engineering literature. So we are essentially "stuck with it" for the moment. From a rigorous physics point of view, energy flow without divergence or change has absolutely no power, because power is defined as the rate of change of the form of that energy flow — e.g., the rate of dissipation (scattering) of that energy flow, which in physics is a rate at which work is being performed.
(b) Second, it seems that more than half the engineers and scientists — and many textbook authors — do not clearly understand the difference between COP and efficiency, and often interchange these two terms as if they were the same. They are not at all the same, and a great deal of confusion exists in the casual engineering literature because of using them interchangeably. That is why we have clarified them and given some simple explanatory examples, sufficient for our purpose in this book.
Solar Power
Start Saving On Your Electricity Bills Using The Power of the Sun And Other Natural Resources!
Responses

COSTANTINO7 years ago
 Reply

elisabeth7 years ago
 Reply