> Where is even ONE operating stirling engine that is actually doing
> its
> promised job, generating power for someone, cost effectivly, even
> NOT
> INCLUDING the development costs?

I think there must be a filter in your system that keeps taking out
the name I keep giving you :-)
So try one of these and remove the obvious fillers.

    www.whisperspamgen.com
    www.spamwhisp_ergen.co.nz

Or gargoyle for w_h_i_s_p_e_r_g_e_n

"Cost effective", of course, then becomes the bastion of the next
objection.
The best proof of cost effectiveness is that a big customer is
prepared to lay down big $ for a big order.
As is the case in the UK with Whisper_ge_n.
The reason that it is cost effective there is that it allows gas to be
turned into heat and electricity at point of use. Gas is superior for
peak load spreading and the power made this way is cheaper than power
made from some other sources and ... . The pricing distortions that
make this genuinely cost effective in this large and enabling
application may well not apply elsewhere. But they are real ones
nonetheless. Note that the electricity is made at 100% efficiency(tm)
as all the rest of the energy that would have ended up as heat if
you'd burnt the gas in a furnace ends up as heat anyway and is used to
heat the water or home. In fact the electricity is produced at ABOVE
100% efficiency (it's true I tell you) as after it has been used in
the home for non heating purposes (lighting, radio, tv,
refrigeration, doorbell, other no heating appliance ... it is then
turned into heat almost completely ans so "gets used twice". So a
Whispergen inside a home that makes say 800W of electricity and say
4200 W of heat directly actually adds 5000 Watt of heat to the home!
So the user gets 5800 Watt of energy use or ~115% efficiency :-)
compared to burning gas directly.

You can buy one now if you wish :-)

Note also that Whispe_gen has been selling at horrendous prices for
some years to the well heeled boating fraternity. These are "what the
market will bear" sales in direct competition with alternatives and
the fact that they have been selling, albeiy in small volume, shows
they are cost effective, all things considered. "All things
considered" is an important point, as cost effectiveness can only be
realistically measured in that environment. If someone is buying the
product in an open market then, stupidity and corruption aside, it's
cost effective for them.

I think your argument would be better changed to something like "Even
when development costs are ignored, Stirling engines have so far
proved themselves cost effective only in small or niche markets"
rather than attempting to filter eg W_hiSP_erGspamge_n out of
existence.



        Russell


PS - just reskimmed you answer and saw comment on WG at the bottom.
Doesn't really negate what's said above about large order and existing 
niche market orders are a "nice little earner" along the way.

        RM





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