On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Russell McMahon wrote: >> ... Anyway it would cost less than half to build, compared to what a 500 >> Watt Stirling costs (5000 EUR). > > Why? People seem to want to dismiss Stirling engines for all sorts of > reasons but most seem to be based on false impressions or uncertain > assumptions. What it costs to BUILD a 500 watt Stirling engine is > quite different from what it presently costs to buy one. The > difference between cost and selling prices I don't want to dismiss anything but the turbo has a potential of 20:1 Watts/$. My reference price and power was from here: http://www.geocities.com/Viebachstirling/ Pages are in German. > includes such factors as marketing, suitability for niche markets which will > tolerate higher profit margins and the consequent "what the market will bear" > costings. If you are making say 10% profit then if you double the selling > price you can afford to sell somewhere around only 10% as much before you > lose money. Fixed costs, volume sensitive costs, size of plant and many other > factors apply but as a general rule, for a niche market product the true cost > of production is quite different from the selling cost. It's only when you > get a highly competitive commodity market that the two approach each other > closely. (The invisible hand at work :-) ). I agree 100% but getting things done implies not disregarding the W/$ ratio. I was unable to find a better deal for a Stirling on the Internet (better than $10/W, as in the Vierbach linked to above). It may well turn out that the turbine will cost more. A better figure of merit would be Wh/$ considering engine life. E.g. a new Vierback will be EUR5000 but a new turbine once everything else is in place will be $300. It is clear to me that at this time this is a wasteful experiment. But someone has to start somewhere and who knows where it will lead. Peter -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist