> On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:26 AM, James Newton wrote:
>> burns ANYTHING cleanly and completely.

> I find it difficult to believe that this is possible.

It's not :-).
I think that what they mean is that it uses "external combustion" and
so does not have several of the problems internal combustion spark or
compression ignition engines do. hen using atmospheric air as an
oxidiser you tend to get Oxides of nitrogen as a byproduct. residual
level depends on how much effort and $ you want to expend. If CO2 is
not 'clean" then nothing burning carbon is going to be 'clean" without
CO2 sequestration of some sort. But an EC engines gives you a good
star\t over an IC engine wrt pollution.

> (that nit out of the way, I don't see any reason that a better
> external combustion engine isn't exciting for a lot of other reasons...)

Yes. A question is, IS this a 'better" external combustion engine? It
is at heart "yet another steam engine". It may be very good indeed,
but so far it's not obvious that it is violently different from many
other past steam engine dreams. And "violently different" tends to be
what's is required to break free from 'more off the same but
different'.

A Stirling Engine [tm] IS violently different than anything else that
is commonly in use at present. this doesn't per se make it better or
best or good enough to be what it takes. The giant Phlips corporation
spent perhaps several decades playing at Stirling Engine development,
and had engines driving cars and buses, and finally gave up. They did
not consider that the SE was fatally flawed for the purposes they were
trying to put it to. They in fact considered that it was only a matter
of spending enough time and money on it. Company fortunes at the time
lead them to rationalise operations and 'get back to basics' and core
products, and SE's were definitely not either. BUT they stated that if
somebody spent the sum they considered likely to be required (figures
of $US10 billion and $US30 billion lurk in my mind) then the payback
period in petroleum savings would be about 4 months worldwide. Most
people would be very happy with that sort of payback period :-) . (I
know of  a product that achieves that in a legitimate manner, but
that's another story).

I will be pleased to see Cyclone stir up a storm. But I'll be
surprised but pleased if they ever get much past Florida.

Even the "Whispergen" Stirling Engine based CHP system has got from NZ
to Spain and UK and into ocean going yachts world wide. When the
Cyclone manages to exceed Whispergen's results to date it will have
achieved a notable success.




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