Author Topic: the future of car engines? (Read 2316 times)

Viking · « **Reply #30 on:** November 05, 2006, 10:06:10 AM »

No, but the Stirling engine does not run on "last week's newspapers". It runs on diesel.

EDIT: Those in current appications run on diesel.

Chairboy · « **Reply #31 on:** November 05, 2006, 10:20:12 AM »

Sterling cycle runs on anything, it's just heat difference. I've seen sterling cycle setups that run off burning paper.

Viking · « **Reply #32 on:** November 05, 2006, 10:23:41 AM »

You've seen that in a vehicle? How many tons of newspapers would you need to burn to go say 200 miles?

Chairboy · « **Reply #33 on:** November 05, 2006, 12:00:19 PM »

I've never seen any stirling engines in a vehicle, have you?

ghi · « **Reply #34 on:** November 05, 2006, 12:40:40 PM »

it takes more energy to compress the air , than the energy released.What bussines is that propulsion sistem/? burns fuel/electric energy to compress air,
imop, the future of car propulsion is electric not air, but the goverments have to invest more in research for new sources: hydrogen cell, nuclear physic ,cold fusion

Viking · « **Reply #35 on:** November 05, 2006, 12:53:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
I've never seen any stirling engines in a vehicle, have you?

Yes, but not in a road vehicle. I've seen it in submarines (Swedish AIP system), and they burn diesel and liquid oxygen.

Angus · « **Reply #36 on:** November 05, 2006, 01:10:37 PM »

bear in mind that most of the energy consumed by your car does NOT go the propulsion bit. AFAIK efficiency is in the 20 - 30% ballpark

Vulcan · « **Reply #37 on:** November 05, 2006, 01:42:42 PM »

There is always "It"...

Viking · « **Reply #38 on:** November 05, 2006, 02:03:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
bear in mind that most of the energy consumed by your car does NOT go the propulsion bit. AFAIK efficiency is in the 20 - 30% ballpark

Yes, and in contrast to a typical steam engine which gets 1 - 8% (including the boiler).

Maverick · « **Reply #39 on:** November 05, 2006, 02:12:05 PM »

I would suggest that relative mechanical, electrical, thermal, etc. "efficiency" is not the main idea that should be pursued in the attempt to get a viable alternative to using petro fuels in automobiles and trucks. I think economic feasability is a far more critcal item to work within. If it cannot be done in a manner that is economically comparable to gas / diesel it isn't going to "fly".

Chairboy · « **Reply #40 on:** November 05, 2006, 02:20:07 PM »

Stirling cycles can achieve almost 40% efficiency, were you lumping them in with piston steam? Like piston steam, a SC can run on anything that burns. Unlike steam, the efficiency is pretty dang good. Added benefit, the colder it is, the better it runs.

Angus · « **Reply #41 on:** November 05, 2006, 02:27:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
Yes, and in contrast to a typical steam engine which gets 1 - 8% (including the boiler).

That would be the old boiler steam engine with piston?
How about the vastly superior steam turbine?

Viking · « **Reply #42 on:** November 05, 2006, 03:14:03 PM »

No. The steam-piston engines are in the lower range of 1-8%. Steam turbines are in the upper range. You'll notice that no modern ship uses steam turbines anymore. They're all diesels now - have been for some time.

Viking · « **Reply #43 on:** November 05, 2006, 03:29:18 PM »

By comparison the Wartsila-Sulzer RTA96-C turbocharged two-stroke diesel engine (ship motor) exceeds 50% thermal efficiency at maximum economy.

Viking · « **Reply #44 on:** November 05, 2006, 04:16:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
Stirling cycles can achieve almost 40% efficiency, were you lumping them in with piston steam? Like piston steam, a SC can run on anything that burns. Unlike steam, the efficiency is pretty dang good. Added benefit, the colder it is, the better it runs.

No I was not "lumping" them together. Technically a Sterling Cycle is not a steam engine, and while it is efficient it is also impractical for most vehicles.