> You seem to be, surprisingly, so I may still be asleep, which 
> is entirly possible, confusing efficiency with power density. 
> Properly designed and built built Stirling engines, ie not 
> the numerous model ones whose designers have no idea about 
> the absolute need for a decent regenerator for real purposes, 
> are as about as efficint as anything around. What they are 
> generally not, and what you may mean, is that they are not 
> "power dense". ie they tend to be large in volume and 
> possibly in mass for their power output. There are reasons 
> for this, which is no excuse when comparing them against 
> alternatives. But in an "alternative energy" world and for 
> non-nobile applications this is often no big deal. Lifetime 
> is an increasing issue as you attempt to improve volumetric 
> power density.
> 

Err... Where exactly are the large, heavy, fixed, long lasting striling
engines that are useful for alternative energy applications? 'Cause I don't
see those either. Is it that they are so huge that they cost a ton and never
recoup their initial investment despite running for years and years?

I challenge ANYONE to show me a sterling engine ANYWHERE in ANY application
that has EVER recouped what it cost.

*crickets*

---
James.
 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist