>>>> I think it can be a matter of time a refrigeration unit would take >>>> waste heat and even would freeze the output. >>>> The collected heat would drive a small steam turbine. >> Q / Textus Receptus suggests that he is suggesting using waste heat to >> drive a steam turbine and / or which would drive a refrigeration unit. > Once again in your zeal to be the apologist for dumb comments, you have > overlooked the most straight forward meaning. No intelligent reading of what I wrote supports that assertion. I specifically noted that in my opinion the opposite of what you assert seemed more probable. It was clearly a reasoned decision on my part. To say what you did essentially states that I'm a liar. You're welcome to do so, but it's a good idea to be aware that you are doing so :-). > Perhaps this is a language > problem, but poor grasp of thermodynamics is a much more likely explanati= on > since it requires less contorting in the interpretation. Even a 'perhaps" requires a far more cib\vilreply than you gave, in civil society. When the perhaps is a "quite possibly", the more so. I've just re-re-re-read the original. It is beyond certainty of translation for me and I'd doubt if it's much different for you. ie neither of us can be sure. But FWIW And probably not much ;-) >>>> I think it can be a matter of time Can probably be omitted >>>> a refrigeration unit would take >>>> waste heat and even would freeze the output. As I read it this says, apparently clearly, that waste heat could provide refrigeration and that the cold end may even be able to be below ) Celsius. As that is exactly what the Vuilleumier machine that I have mentioned does - heat in / cold out, no other heat engines etc in the path, then the statement seems self evidently correct. >>>> The collected heat would drive a small steam turbine. It seems quite likely, but of course not certain, that here we have the same problem that you famously had with a French speaker using the word 'demand" and visualising '"demande" and meaning "ask". In the greater technical and linguistic context it seems reasonable to render "would" as 'could" or "could even". ie this may be an alternative application. i) Drive a VM cooler. ii) Drive a steam engine. There is enough of a chance (ie quite good) that the meaning is as above that leaping in with fish covered hobnails and bollocking the poster before seeing if you should be washing egg out of your beard, seems wise. >>>> There should be invented refrigerating medium to withstand >>>> some hundred C. Though, thermodynamics should be >>>> checked on this idea. In the above context that seems to be saying that the operating range of some refrigeration media may be several hundred degrees. If this is the intention (and it seems a > 5% bet) then the answer depends on cycle, working fluid, practical operating conditions and desired efficiencies. Running with eg air in a Carnot Cycle you can operate from about 80 kelvin up to about as hot as you want. Using Helium or Hydrogen there is no sensible limit unless you stray super close to absolute zero. Start pressurising and triple points and more raise their head but air well enough meets the universal but low spec fluid requirement for Stirling. trying to link the above to the prior statements in an attempt to make the whole seem thermodynamically ludicrous seems like a fraught exercise. No? (probably not :-) ). > You can't get power from waste heat and then "freeze the output". You can't freeze all the output if the ambient sink is > freezing. BUT "freeze the output" seems to be very reasonably read as "produce AN output temperature which is below freezing point" - as a VM does. You seem to be adding extra concepts and implied words and terms to what was said to fit into a mold suited to being criticised. Given the obvious linguistic difficulties this seems "unwise". Some will be egging you on :-) R --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .