I think they made that claim considering that real implementations of the Carnot cycle require some kind of mechanical device, or a chemical reaction - well, an engine - to perform the compression stage.
Their system seems to use far less mechanical components, thus involving far less losses due to mechanical constraints.
In other words, if you measure the overall efficiency (work fed / work produced) of the system, you always get less than 100%.
A good example is the Sterling engine, its efficiency is excellent but nowhere near 100%.
The only system i know that is more than 100% efficient is the breeder reactor. But again it's a special way of looking at figures, even a breeder reactor does not violate thermodynamics laws.
|