"Olin Lathrop" wrote:
> Your original statement was only about using "waste heat" from the exhaus=
t.

The original statement was about using "waste heat" without  "only" word.


> it seemed the point was to put this free power to use.

No

> That by itself makes
> sense, although you can't use that power to cause a net reduction in the
> overall heat transferred from the vehicle to the environment. =A0You can =
make
> something colder than ambient, but something else will end up getting hot=
ter
> and in the steady state transferring the same total heat flow to the
> environment.
>

I did not mention "steady state".


> Adding more power to this system from the engine would defeat the purpose=
,
> so this would be a stupid idea and I was giving you the benefit of the do=
ubt
> that you therefore didn't mean that.

How is it related to my post?


> The extra power output of the engine
> causes it to make even more waste heat. =A0You can't use a heat engine to=
 cool
> its total output. =A0You'll only loose by trying since the heat engine is=
n't
> perfectly efficient.
>

I was not talking about "heat engine". I was talking about storing
"heat energy" to be used later.


> This is the first you said anything about going down a hill, potential
> energy of the car, or not steady state conditions.

Yes, I said about "going down a hill" just to illustrate the idea of
the first post. Many more examples can be brought here to illustrate
the idea, say, a power plant in desert, of
- wind-powered compressor-refrigerator,
- solar heater with steam turbine,
- and a diesel generator
A wind-powered compressor-refrigerator would take waste heat from a
diesel generator and would store it in the form of overheated steam.
The overheated steam would be used by the steam turbine on-demand.


> You really need to be
> more clear what you're saying if you don't want people to misunderstand a=
nd
> perceive you as stupid.
>

Are you a professional EE?


> If that's what you're really saying then:
>
> 1 - You were VERY unclear originally at best. =A0More likely you didn't
> =A0 =A0think this out well and this last wrinkle is just a response to
> =A0 =A0getting caught and a failed attempt to save face.
>

What's the purpose of the attack?


> 2 - It's not clear you understand heat engines and what Carnot had to
> =A0 =A0say.
>

My post was not about "heat engine". It was about storing "heat
energy" to be used later.


> 3 - It still doesn't sound like a very good idea. =A0At reasonable
> =A0 =A0temperatures you could expect for such a system in a car, the
> =A0 =A0efficiencies will be pretty bad. =A0The mechanical systems for
> =A0 =A0storing and retrieving sufficient power to be meaningful would
> =A0 =A0also be rather large and heavy, again not well suited to a
> =A0 =A0vehicle.
>

Yes, it may not be a good idea. But before judging it, one needs to
get deeper in the subject if we are talking about heavy trucks like
Caterpillar 797F, ultra class, mechanical powertrain haul truck or
Bucyrus MT6300AC , ultra class, diesel/AC electric powertrain haul
truck.


> 4 - This now has little to do with harnessing waste heat from the
> =A0 =A0engine, which is what you were originally talking about.

Why?

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