Jack Tingle skreiv:
> I would rate it as 'not obviously out to lunch'. It probably works about
> as advertised, but how efficient, durable, or expensive it will be in
> production will determine if it's a good idea, or just a novel
> demonstration of physics. (Assuming it's not a plausible scam, of
course.)
Agreed. The basic principle sounds plausible enough, but I'd be
extremely skeptical of the "60% efficiency" claims, it says as much in
the article;
"Based on the theoretical Carnot thermodynamic cycle, at 600 degrees
efficiency rates approach 60 percent, twice those of today’s solar
Stirling engines."
This just says that a current Stirling manages at best half what is
physically possible with the Carnot-cycle. It doesn't deliver any reason
to believe this device will achieve that theoretical maximum, indeed
that seems highly improbable.
Eivind Kjørstad
|
