>>>> a refrigeration unit would take
>>>> waste heat and even would freeze the output.

>> As I read it this says, apparently clearly, that waste =A0heat could
>> provide refrigeration and that the cold end may even be able to be
>> below ) Celsius.

> No, he said "the output", meaning the exhaust stream of the car. =A0You c=
an't
> use a heat engine to cool its hot input to below its cold input.

You appear to be serious.
I assume that the thrill of the chase and/or refusal to let go the
bone has stopped you stepping back and looking at the total context.
Maybe not. (I don't SEEM to have a bone in my mouth. We'll see :-).)

Total response was:

 > 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. There should be invented refrigerating
medium to withstand some hundred C. Though, thermodynamics should be
checked  on this idea.>

If you gave a class of smart senior school students (say 15 - 18 year
old range) the overall context of recovering energy from hot exhausts
etc and then asked them if when a person with English as a second or
other language wrote

" I think it can be a matter of time a refrigeration unit would take
waste heat and even would freeze the output."

which of the two meanings did they believe Occam would  prefer:

(i)  " ... a refrigeration unit powered by the waste heat from a
vehicle exhaust could even reduce the total exhaust output to below
zero degrees Celsius".

(ii)  " ... a refrigeration unit powered by the waste heat from a
vehicle exhaust could even produce temperatures of below zero degrees
Celsius at the refrigerator's output."


then, do you think a very large majority would choose (i) or (ii).?
We could always try this :-)

____

NT - which of the above "answers" comes closest to what you intended?



                Russell

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.